This filing was written in such a way the SCOTUS has to rule in favor of Texas and in turn Trump will be declared the RIGHTFUL winner. If they rule against Texas then the Constitution is nothing more that a piece of old paper with words on it.
It was probably written by people who already understood these nuances, who already asked, "What's the impact or consequences of a 'POTUS/VP-bundled'* election?"
* Remember, POTUS and VP were initially elected independent of one another.
This is an excellent point. I hadn't thought about the historical change and its implications until now.
(And, of course, it's outside the scope and point of this suit, but the guarantee this year of the VP becoming the actual POTUS if the ChildSniffer gets away with this, is a giant, cackling elephant in the room.)
Even as a non- law nerd, this suit is fascinating to read. Just brilliant.
Every other case has been a decoy, while the legislative hearings have been a tool to provide evidence and backup this case.
That and to present to the people the fact that there's been a massive vote disenfranchisement to many states. The country is used to seeing votes being reported to a TV news broadcast and at the end of the night, the winner is known and therefore chosen by the country. Now, a completely different process will occur and people need to believe it was necessary AND constitutionally correct.
It’s a beautiful case. It’s historic and the correct ruling, putting the resolution back into the hands of the legislatures, would reaffirmed the constitution. It would also put it back on the people through their representatives to resolve. The citizens of each of these states need to organize themselves and be very vocal about how they want their representatives to handle this!
I don't think this case addresses the voter fraud that the hearings talked about. Rather, the unconstitutional laws/orders put in place by states' governors, SoS, and judges.
If I recall correctly, it mentions the voter fraud as being proof that many irregularities happened in the 4 states as a result of unconstitutionally implementing mail in voting.
Therefore the legislative hearings provided backup for this part of the case.
The whole Dominion thing, and all other fraud become now byproducts of the unconstitutional actions of these states. It's a very good way of looking at it since it provides a strong reference point for the reason behind all the fraud.
The info Lin Wood found about Brad Raffensperger making secret agreements that changed election procedure was in there, too. I wouldn't be surprised if everything that's been dragged onto the record was being scrutinized to see if it can be added to this case.
Considering the harassment that Trump's lawyers suffered in PA, though, it's not surprising that whoever worked on this was able to keep this quiet. Also, if someone had come on here and said "hey there's some law clerks that are working on a thing in Texas and maybe we'll see something in like two weeks I guess tick tock" that would not draw any attention compared to THE DISTRACTIO-- err, THE KRAKEN.
Exactly, it all is starting to make sense now. Trump and his team knew that they had to provide distraction from a strong case.
And they also knew the best way to make a case is to get a strong, large state to sue other states. I don't know why I hadn't thought about this obvious possibility before, but I think it had to do with my growing mistrust of Republican states standing up for Trump.
I think this was 2-3 months before Nov. 3rd. It makes the most sense to me since that gives time to build it on the just in case based on history. All of us, and those around the country, helping and providing evidence might of aided them significantly or more.
We are still providing and finding more evidence as well which is looking to making this case even stronger.
I would not be surprised if they have something else in the works as well to aid this or to use this to aid that just depends, but either way of looking at it this is going to be a rock and hard place to stop it which is a good thing.
This case is nothing but a hit and throat cut to the Democrats. If you simply just go by the constitution, as our judiciary should, this is a closed case with Texas as the obvious victor. However, how the SCOTUS will decide will be dependent on whether or not the SCOTUS wants to do their actual job and honor the oath they took, or if they want to be judicial activists and make a completely political decision that goes against the constitution.
Too bad we have the 17th Amendment that destroyed federalism. We need to repeal that clusterfuck. If repealed, we'd have 70 to 80 conservative Senators, not 50 (in reality, about a dozen because they are all RINO vying for the liberal votes instead of the state legislatures which are conservative).
the 17th amendment put senators to a popular vote rather than being chosen by state representatives.
in general, state representatives skew conservative because they have to come from all parts of the state, whereas the popular votes for a senator only come from the population centers of the state. in other words, all the "flyover counties" of states have no real say in who their senator is right now. the 17th amendment, in some sense, removed an electoral college for choosing senators.
if you repeal the 17th amendment, the end result is that all the rural county voters will have a larger say in who their senator is.
right now, in a state like montana, the relatively liberal cities like missoula and bozeman get to unilaterally pick who the senator is because they have a lot more retarded urbanites who vote for whomever the TV tells them to. but montana's state legislature will be conservative for a long time into the future.
The 17th was pushed by special interests who wanted to influence Senators but not be restricted by the will of state governments.
When our federal system was created, states were worried that the federal government would wield unrestricted power upon the them. Our Founders knew a House of Representatives could easily be influenced by the short-term whims of the people - who can easily be manipulated with propaganda. So, the states said "we don't want to lose our right to self govern if we join this new union." The solution was to create a Senate, where the Senators represented the interests of the states, and protected state sovereignty and states' rights. In addition, they didn't want the Senators to be elected by a popular vote, like the House, because a single Senator was easier to corrupt than 51% of a state legislature. Therefore, the Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures. The results was that Senators would NOT vote for bills that went against the interests of the states because those state legislatures could recall Senators at any time and replace them with someone who had state interest in mind.
Well, the 17th Amendment did away with state legislatures electing, instead having the Senate elected via popular vote like the House. This single move is what has given rise to the loss of states' rights and the destruction of federalism/republicanism.
Until we repeal the 17th we will never have a constitutional federal government. It will only keep getting bigger and bigger.
This is where conservatives fucking fail. They have tunnel vision, not looking at the big picture. Meanwhile the Democrats are planning shit based on the big picture.
I would say yes, and in pretty short time, too. One or two election cycles and we'd see massive change - like 50% of the federal agencies/departments and laws/regulations gone. That's just a start.
The question then is how instead of when. If we know how then the when would be an eventuality. I guess it will be different for each state to get to that point, but to change the Amendment will require full control of both House, Senate, President, and 38(I think) States without a civil war.
I am the type that likes to go overboard. The fact that the Deep State is what it is is probably more reason why I stated it the way I did then the conventional way.
3/5 of the states is needed to do an amendment change, but I would like the 2/3 control of congress both house and senate just to ensure that Deep State has it that much harder to affect change. Having the president just furthers the Difficulty.
Superb argument. I would add that the House, when voting in state delegations, also represents states. Heck, the electoral college votes in state delegations and represents states. The rigging has caused states so much harm right across the board.
I think it is important for Texas to do this. Imagine if 5 red states hated Biden so much that they fabricated their election results and took control over who was elected president. And told everyone who objected to SHUT THE FUCK UP, or we will burn you all down and riot. This is exactly what these states are doing.
the 17th amendment is a...weird thing to look at because it turned the senators into representatives elected by the people instead of elected by the state legislators - turning it into a second House.
I'm not sure what the argument could be - maybe that the Senate isn't a body representing the States anymore? But even so, there are only 2 per state - giving each state equal share in the senate. And this would be in violation of article III, I think.
Only time will tell.
the 17th amendment kind of messed things up - we should repeal it.
Yeah I’d like to dig into the thinking of the time. Why transform the senate?
Anyway, this argument is actually pretty simple, we are a republic or we aren’t. All states should be agreeing on the election process. Any state deviating is undercutting the others.
To deem that election fraud in the swing states' has effected the representation of the sister states' representation in the Senate. This is unconstitutional in regards to Article III, and it would force the swing state electorate to be overturned and for the election to be on the responsibility of the delegates - of which republicans hold the majority of.
They still do though as each state has equal representation in the Senate regardless of their population. Legislation only passes in the Senate if a majority of states agree with it.
It's not the fast track to 1776. It's the day we start shooting.
24 minute old account spamming twitter links which lead to his site. Deport!
This filing was written in such a way the SCOTUS has to rule in favor of Texas and in turn Trump will be declared the RIGHTFUL winner. If they rule against Texas then the Constitution is nothing more that a piece of old paper with words on it.
Part of me wonders if this whole Texas suit has been in the works since November 3, and they have been getting the best minds to put this together.
Every other case has been a decoy, while the legislative hearings have been a tool to provide evidence and backup this case.
This case seems very well thought out, and very organized. I'm actually amazed this whole thing never leaked - even on 4chan and the like.
Good point about the leaks, this came out of nowhere and is absolutely amazing.
It was probably written by people who already understood these nuances, who already asked, "What's the impact or consequences of a 'POTUS/VP-bundled'* election?"
* Remember, POTUS and VP were initially elected independent of one another.
This way I'd like to send our sincere greetings to the Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch and lovely ACB!
This is an excellent point. I hadn't thought about the historical change and its implications until now.
(And, of course, it's outside the scope and point of this suit, but the guarantee this year of the VP becoming the actual POTUS if the ChildSniffer gets away with this, is a giant, cackling elephant in the room.)
Even as a non- law nerd, this suit is fascinating to read. Just brilliant.
That and to present to the people the fact that there's been a massive vote disenfranchisement to many states. The country is used to seeing votes being reported to a TV news broadcast and at the end of the night, the winner is known and therefore chosen by the country. Now, a completely different process will occur and people need to believe it was necessary AND constitutionally correct.
Exactly, good point
It’s almost like it had to be this way
It’s a beautiful case. It’s historic and the correct ruling, putting the resolution back into the hands of the legislatures, would reaffirmed the constitution. It would also put it back on the people through their representatives to resolve. The citizens of each of these states need to organize themselves and be very vocal about how they want their representatives to handle this!
I don't think this case addresses the voter fraud that the hearings talked about. Rather, the unconstitutional laws/orders put in place by states' governors, SoS, and judges.
If I recall correctly, it mentions the voter fraud as being proof that many irregularities happened in the 4 states as a result of unconstitutionally implementing mail in voting.
Therefore the legislative hearings provided backup for this part of the case.
The whole Dominion thing, and all other fraud become now byproducts of the unconstitutional actions of these states. It's a very good way of looking at it since it provides a strong reference point for the reason behind all the fraud.
Which enabled the voter fraud.
The info Lin Wood found about Brad Raffensperger making secret agreements that changed election procedure was in there, too. I wouldn't be surprised if everything that's been dragged onto the record was being scrutinized to see if it can be added to this case.
Considering the harassment that Trump's lawyers suffered in PA, though, it's not surprising that whoever worked on this was able to keep this quiet. Also, if someone had come on here and said "hey there's some law clerks that are working on a thing in Texas and maybe we'll see something in like two weeks I guess tick tock" that would not draw any attention compared to THE DISTRACTIO-- err, THE KRAKEN.
Exactly, it all is starting to make sense now. Trump and his team knew that they had to provide distraction from a strong case.
And they also knew the best way to make a case is to get a strong, large state to sue other states. I don't know why I hadn't thought about this obvious possibility before, but I think it had to do with my growing mistrust of Republican states standing up for Trump.
I think this was 2-3 months before Nov. 3rd. It makes the most sense to me since that gives time to build it on the just in case based on history. All of us, and those around the country, helping and providing evidence might of aided them significantly or more.
We are still providing and finding more evidence as well which is looking to making this case even stronger.
I would not be surprised if they have something else in the works as well to aid this or to use this to aid that just depends, but either way of looking at it this is going to be a rock and hard place to stop it which is a good thing.
This case is nothing but a hit and throat cut to the Democrats. If you simply just go by the constitution, as our judiciary should, this is a closed case with Texas as the obvious victor. However, how the SCOTUS will decide will be dependent on whether or not the SCOTUS wants to do their actual job and honor the oath they took, or if they want to be judicial activists and make a completely political decision that goes against the constitution.
Regardless of outcome, we'll know which judges need hanged.
Or impeached, I guess.
Based on whether they can justify their unconstitutional positions.
It would take a lot of courage and integrity for the SC to do the right thing. I hope they have it, but if I'm honest, I'm far from confident they do.
Too bad we have the 17th Amendment that destroyed federalism. We need to repeal that clusterfuck. If repealed, we'd have 70 to 80 conservative Senators, not 50 (in reality, about a dozen because they are all RINO vying for the liberal votes instead of the state legislatures which are conservative).
ELI5 please? Not a legalese junkie
the 17th amendment put senators to a popular vote rather than being chosen by state representatives.
in general, state representatives skew conservative because they have to come from all parts of the state, whereas the popular votes for a senator only come from the population centers of the state. in other words, all the "flyover counties" of states have no real say in who their senator is right now. the 17th amendment, in some sense, removed an electoral college for choosing senators.
if you repeal the 17th amendment, the end result is that all the rural county voters will have a larger say in who their senator is.
right now, in a state like montana, the relatively liberal cities like missoula and bozeman get to unilaterally pick who the senator is because they have a lot more retarded urbanites who vote for whomever the TV tells them to. but montana's state legislature will be conservative for a long time into the future.
I always wondered why Montana went full retard with governors
Well, that and all the fraud, of course. Who knows how many governorships they've taken by cheating?
We should also go to an electoral college for the Governors of our states.
The 17th was pushed by special interests who wanted to influence Senators but not be restricted by the will of state governments.
When our federal system was created, states were worried that the federal government would wield unrestricted power upon the them. Our Founders knew a House of Representatives could easily be influenced by the short-term whims of the people - who can easily be manipulated with propaganda. So, the states said "we don't want to lose our right to self govern if we join this new union." The solution was to create a Senate, where the Senators represented the interests of the states, and protected state sovereignty and states' rights. In addition, they didn't want the Senators to be elected by a popular vote, like the House, because a single Senator was easier to corrupt than 51% of a state legislature. Therefore, the Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures. The results was that Senators would NOT vote for bills that went against the interests of the states because those state legislatures could recall Senators at any time and replace them with someone who had state interest in mind.
Well, the 17th Amendment did away with state legislatures electing, instead having the Senate elected via popular vote like the House. This single move is what has given rise to the loss of states' rights and the destruction of federalism/republicanism.
Until we repeal the 17th we will never have a constitutional federal government. It will only keep getting bigger and bigger.
This is where conservatives fucking fail. They have tunnel vision, not looking at the big picture. Meanwhile the Democrats are planning shit based on the big picture.
So repeal the 17th and we go back to federalism
I would say yes, and in pretty short time, too. One or two election cycles and we'd see massive change - like 50% of the federal agencies/departments and laws/regulations gone. That's just a start.
The question then is how instead of when. If we know how then the when would be an eventuality. I guess it will be different for each state to get to that point, but to change the Amendment will require full control of both House, Senate, President, and 38(I think) States without a civil war.
I think that is the long term(at the moment)goal.
You don't need control of the Senate or House. You just need 3/5ths or 4/5ths of the states to pass an amendment.
I am the type that likes to go overboard. The fact that the Deep State is what it is is probably more reason why I stated it the way I did then the conventional way.
3/5 of the states is needed to do an amendment change, but I would like the 2/3 control of congress both house and senate just to ensure that Deep State has it that much harder to affect change. Having the president just furthers the Difficulty.
So where do we start?
Start with telling everybody you know about it. Tell them to tell others
It’s no wonder Ted Cruz wants to argue for the case. The dude is a constitutional genius
Supported him in 2016 for pres, never regretted it.
Superb argument. I would add that the House, when voting in state delegations, also represents states. Heck, the electoral college votes in state delegations and represents states. The rigging has caused states so much harm right across the board.
Just came to say that I love that you said “heck”
😄
Pence won BY A LOT!
LINK TO TWEET PLEASE FFS
Got it.
https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1336378449624256512
Wow
I think it is important for Texas to do this. Imagine if 5 red states hated Biden so much that they fabricated their election results and took control over who was elected president. And told everyone who objected to SHUT THE FUCK UP, or we will burn you all down and riot. This is exactly what these states are doing.
But muh disinformation!!!
As the kids say, get rekt libs! Can't believe we have a freaking shill stickied on the front page
Holes shite we got smart people !!!🎇✨🎈🧨😎😎😎
I can’t imagine any legitimate argument to these points. Not a lawyer.
the 17th amendment is a...weird thing to look at because it turned the senators into representatives elected by the people instead of elected by the state legislators - turning it into a second House.
I'm not sure what the argument could be - maybe that the Senate isn't a body representing the States anymore? But even so, there are only 2 per state - giving each state equal share in the senate. And this would be in violation of article III, I think.
Only time will tell.
the 17th amendment kind of messed things up - we should repeal it.
Yeah I’d like to dig into the thinking of the time. Why transform the senate?
Anyway, this argument is actually pretty simple, we are a republic or we aren’t. All states should be agreeing on the election process. Any state deviating is undercutting the others.
The ultimate form of nerd, he who protects all other nerds.
This is amazing. Speaking of the states, is there any kind of plan for what they will do about the stolen Senate and House seats as well?
Federalist 68 is generally attributed to Alexander Hamilton. Dude is still saving our country 200 years later.
What exactly is this lawsuit hoping to accomplish by Texas, to flip the election back to Trump?
To deem that election fraud in the swing states' has effected the representation of the sister states' representation in the Senate. This is unconstitutional in regards to Article III, and it would force the swing state electorate to be overturned and for the election to be on the responsibility of the delegates - of which republicans hold the majority of.
Essentially yes is the answer.
That's up to the court to define.
It is weaker I think. Especially because of the Georgia run-off.
They still do though as each state has equal representation in the Senate regardless of their population. Legislation only passes in the Senate if a majority of states agree with it.