I guess China declared war on America and the military will have to deal with it then. Biden the Traitor and his companions cannot legally take and continue in office.
I appreciate this factual breakdown of the position we're in as it relates to the constitution and law. While I do comprehend what you're saying, I speak for many when I say we know we've been cheated and played by all the rules until we realized the rules were only for us.
So they can certify whatever they want and put whatever corrupt talking head "in power" that they want but at the end of the day the government works for us and they need a reminder of who they answer to rather than who they shit on.
It’s called the Insurrection Act and a plethora of Title 18 criminal violations along with factual Treason to aid multiple Countries. That’s how you not only win, but remove those involved forever and show people that doing so has absolute severe consequences.
The Insurrection Act cannot be invoked to arrest House or Senate members. DJT can only invoke the powers in the Insurrection act in case of rebellion, insurrection, or civil disorders that the states themselves cannot handle.
I think the Supreme Court should have heard the case so as to give a clear message and bring down judgement for clarity.
As for standing, I am not sure it would be wise to allow states to sue other states for how they conduct their business. For example, what would stop California for suing Texas over gun laws?
Even if Texas did have standing, there is also a requirement that only Texas can bring up the case in order to invoke the SC's original jurisdiction. The fact that DJT was intervening in the case makes this a difficult one to argue.
Personally, I believe the cases with the best chances of getting a hearing are the ones filed by the Trump campaign. They have unquestionable standing.
Texas sued for illegal and fraudulent election causing damage to their national representation. It has nothing to do with what the PA election laws are, but PA's election did violate the US constitution.
As a professor you should be able to understand that every state in the US has the same president and VP.
That is true. But the same could be argued for California wanting to sue Indiana for their strict voter ID laws. If the SC allowed this case, there would be a plethora of such cases in the future.
Also, the way Texas filed the case was by invoking the SC's original jurisdiction. Meaning only Texas must have standing. This isn't the case.
Our best hope is for the contested state's AGs and Republican-led legislatures to file cases.
In that case, Texas must demonstrate that only Texas has standing and no other state. That's the other requirement for invoking the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. And I think it's difficult to convince the court. Not impossible, but difficult.
It simply depends on whether or not the judges want to hear the case. The courts in the US have repeatedly demonstrated that they want to be politicians, not judges. This goes all the way from county level courts to the supreme court, as shown by what they did in the past month.
You can't sue before - no damage, no standing
You can't sue during - no damage, no standing
You can't sue after - you sued too late, laches
Whether or not Texas, or anyone, can demonstrate standing literally doesn't matter. The judges will throw out everything by making up bs excuses.
Also do you really expect any of the deep state and the liberal activist judges to hear the case and then rule according to the constitution? Come on.
SCOTUS could have heard the case if they wanted to, that is correct.
All I'm saying is that in order to legally invoke SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, there are requirements that need to be fulfilled - and TX was not able to do so.
I appreciate your insight. The thing that i see is people that are truly awake. It's no longer dem or repub. It's right and wrong. Jan 6 will be the day.
Youre the man take charge. Dont let your kids be commied.
That was a difficult one to support. Texas can't really say it has standing. Our best hopes would have been AGs from MI, WI, GA, etc. to file the cases.
Also, Texas went to the SC directly, invoking original jurisdiction. It can't. Because it can't demonstrate that it has unique interest. This means it must demonstrate that only Texas can file the case.
It was a good show of support though, for all the AGs and states involved.
Nope. I saw the action. But, for GA's competing slate of electors to be official, it needs to have a vote. With a Republican majority, there should be no problem for it to pass. However, they can't vote without there being a session.
That is why the state legislatures should hurry up and send their own certifications for Trump electors. Not from a committee, not from a lone or group of legislators. It must be a majority of the legislators, speaking from their office.
For this to happen, there needs to be special sessions. This hasn't happened yet. Let's hope it does.
OP: I'm a constitutional law professor.
Also OP: I strongly believe he should be president for life.
Deport the shill.
If I study and teach the law, doesn't mean I have to like it.
No shit. Laughable.
Got about a million pedes that say otherwise
I guess China declared war on America and the military will have to deal with it then. Biden the Traitor and his companions cannot legally take and continue in office.
I appreciate this factual breakdown of the position we're in as it relates to the constitution and law. While I do comprehend what you're saying, I speak for many when I say we know we've been cheated and played by all the rules until we realized the rules were only for us.
So they can certify whatever they want and put whatever corrupt talking head "in power" that they want but at the end of the day the government works for us and they need a reminder of who they answer to rather than who they shit on.
Maybe some Democrats in swing districts can be convinced and be redpilled. But it's a steep hill to climb.
It’s called the Insurrection Act and a plethora of Title 18 criminal violations along with factual Treason to aid multiple Countries. That’s how you not only win, but remove those involved forever and show people that doing so has absolute severe consequences.
The Insurrection Act cannot be invoked to arrest House or Senate members. DJT can only invoke the powers in the Insurrection act in case of rebellion, insurrection, or civil disorders that the states themselves cannot handle.
LOL...Shillty...a new dog breed for 2021!
So...what’s your opinion about Texas not having standing to sue another state, etc?
I think the Supreme Court should have heard the case so as to give a clear message and bring down judgement for clarity.
As for standing, I am not sure it would be wise to allow states to sue other states for how they conduct their business. For example, what would stop California for suing Texas over gun laws?
Even if Texas did have standing, there is also a requirement that only Texas can bring up the case in order to invoke the SC's original jurisdiction. The fact that DJT was intervening in the case makes this a difficult one to argue.
Personally, I believe the cases with the best chances of getting a hearing are the ones filed by the Trump campaign. They have unquestionable standing.
Texas sued for illegal and fraudulent election causing damage to their national representation. It has nothing to do with what the PA election laws are, but PA's election did violate the US constitution.
As a professor you should be able to understand that every state in the US has the same president and VP.
That is true. But the same could be argued for California wanting to sue Indiana for their strict voter ID laws. If the SC allowed this case, there would be a plethora of such cases in the future.
Also, the way Texas filed the case was by invoking the SC's original jurisdiction. Meaning only Texas must have standing. This isn't the case.
Our best hope is for the contested state's AGs and Republican-led legislatures to file cases.
CA should absolutely sue if they feel that Indiana voter ID laws jeopardized a federal election and I see 0 problem with this.
In that case, Texas must demonstrate that only Texas has standing and no other state. That's the other requirement for invoking the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. And I think it's difficult to convince the court. Not impossible, but difficult.
It simply depends on whether or not the judges want to hear the case. The courts in the US have repeatedly demonstrated that they want to be politicians, not judges. This goes all the way from county level courts to the supreme court, as shown by what they did in the past month.
You can't sue before - no damage, no standing You can't sue during - no damage, no standing You can't sue after - you sued too late, laches
Whether or not Texas, or anyone, can demonstrate standing literally doesn't matter. The judges will throw out everything by making up bs excuses.
Also do you really expect any of the deep state and the liberal activist judges to hear the case and then rule according to the constitution? Come on.
SCOTUS could have heard the case if they wanted to, that is correct.
All I'm saying is that in order to legally invoke SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, there are requirements that need to be fulfilled - and TX was not able to do so.
And as a constitutional law professor (aka unemployed basement dweller) get a new job
You're partially correct. I am a basement dweller.
The social contract is void.
May God have mercy on us all.
....sure you did......
Sorry man, i'm just recently redpilled. I have been cucked for most of my life. I'm working on it though.
Douche cunt DEPORT
Youre surrounded by too many leftists but thanks for your cuckery
You could say that. Even my kids are becoming little commies. I have to turn around somehow.
I appreciate your insight. The thing that i see is people that are truly awake. It's no longer dem or repub. It's right and wrong. Jan 6 will be the day.
Youre the man take charge. Dont let your kids be commied.
I'm slowly redpilling the wife first. She seems to be open-minded.
Good luck man. I was a dem 20 years ago. Anyone that still is watches msm. No other way to see it
Thanks man, appreciate it.
Appreciate the insight. What's your opinion on the Texas case being tossed?
That was a difficult one to support. Texas can't really say it has standing. Our best hopes would have been AGs from MI, WI, GA, etc. to file the cases.
Also, Texas went to the SC directly, invoking original jurisdiction. It can't. Because it can't demonstrate that it has unique interest. This means it must demonstrate that only Texas can file the case.
It was a good show of support though, for all the AGs and states involved.
I guess closet Trump voting Constitutional Lawyer missed the action in GA yesterday.
Nope. I saw the action. But, for GA's competing slate of electors to be official, it needs to have a vote. With a Republican majority, there should be no problem for it to pass. However, they can't vote without there being a session.
It will never pass due to the sheer amount of treacherous RINOs in GA's state legislature.
There are still audits taking place!
That is why the state legislatures should hurry up and send their own certifications for Trump electors. Not from a committee, not from a lone or group of legislators. It must be a majority of the legislators, speaking from their office.
For this to happen, there needs to be special sessions. This hasn't happened yet. Let's hope it does.
It's clear as day that most Republicans are traitors. Are you expecting traitors to stand up for someone they want to remove?