Read pages 16-19 of the case I linked. You are just asserting the claim "was not valid" but it's in black and white in the PA constitution. If they wanted to change they constitution, they would have required all kinds of things such as newspaper ads to make sure the public knows etc. However, they did none of that so Title 77 is constitutionally invalid.
Honestly this "brother in law" thing is starting to sound like bullshit to me and you are likely just another new account shill.
Also the "not enough votes" argument is also nonsense. Read the TX SCOTUS case. Read the Navarro Reports. There are more than enough votes in question in PA.
I didn't just say the "claim was not valid". I gave a couple of specific reasons why it was not (according to the docket). Again, the document will be much specific and clear than I can be, if you want to read it.
I also said the votes related to the PA Supreme Court rulings were not enough, not that votes related to the constitutional claim weren't enough.
I understand these are hard questions and I might be labeled a shill for asking them. I'm willing to take that risk for the truth. There's a lot of people like me asking questions and looking for better answers/truth than we're getting from the MSM. I was just accepting a lot of what I was hearing until my family started giving all this other information. This debate with them has been difficult.
I am not persuaded by the may/shall argument in the slightest. Do you really believe they are arguing honestly when they say the revision from may to shall somehow means that shall establishes a floor of what the legislature can do which they can go beyond?? English is my native language so I happen to know that if someone changes something to shall (i.e. must), they are strengthening the language to make sure people know not to violate this clause. May gives permission. Shall is a command.
Furthermore, SCOTUS never ruled on the merits and the PA Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits as well. The only judge in PA that ever ruled on merits (not just on procedural crap like mootness, ripeness, laches, etc) said that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on those merits.
Update: And by the way, check out the Mathews v. Paynter case they cite for their brilliant may/shall argument. It's a laughable comparison. Whereas in that case a clause stipulating a list of what offenses "shall be subject to disciplinary action" was argued to not be an exhaustive or exclusive list, quite clearly the intent of Article VII, section 14 of the PA constitution is to list all of the reasons one can vote absentee. These people are not honest in their arguments.
Right, the claim is the shall strengthens the floor for the absentee voting provisions, a minimal requirement, but doesn't limit extending the absentee voting provisions (including allowing anyone to vote by mail). I don't know if they are arguing honestly (can't read minds), but it does make logical sense. Part of the problem is that Republicans didn't question the new law (that they originally authored and passed) until after the election, although it had been enacted a year earlier. Such a tangled mess...
Third party here. It's clearly not a floor, it's an exception. Otherwise it would contradict the effective in-person voting requirement that's also specified.
A good example would be, imagine if the exception clause didn't exist at all. So there were no clause about absentee voting at all in the constitution. It would be interpreted then as you must offer your vote in person. Not that it's some "floor" and you can add as many exceptions to that as you want.
Also since my guess is you're on the left politically and here for some sort debate (now that reddit and twitter have become far left echo chambers), my question for you is: how do you justify the video that came out of Georgia? They have an electronic record of ballots, they could have easily checked who those ballots went for and allowed bipartisan investigation, including interviews of those involved, yet they didn't do that or at least make any of it known publically or to the Trump campaign. Seems so egregious to me that such a lack of transparency becomes then evidence of guilt. So how do you justify it? Just curious.
I don't think it makes logical sense at all. One has to have no historical understanding to believe that the reason they enumerated the list of reasons one could vote absentee in the constitution wasn't precisely to encapsulate every valid reason to vote absentee.
And while I agree with you that Republicans didn't question their own law, the constitutionality of Title 77 is not what most people are concerned about. It's that Title 77 itself was further modified by the PA Supreme Court. That's the big question in this election that SCOTUS cowardly failed to address: Do officials such as Secretaries of State and courts such as the biased PA Supreme Court have the authority to modify elections laws?
I think in some ways you are allowing the your family to distract you. The onus is not upon us to prove fraud occurred.
The onus was upon law enforcement to investigate things like the truck driver shipping ballots from NY to PA or the USPS whistleblowers saying they were ordered to illegally backdate ballots. They failed.
The onus was upon the courts to adjudicate these issues rather than dismissing cases on procedural grounds. They failed.
The onus was on county and state officials to preserve evidence and conduct audits such as signature matches. They failed.
The onus was upon courts and others to order that voting software and other voting machine internals cannot be proprietary and must be auditable. They failed.
What you should be arguing to your family is that we were not allowed to look and therefore the election can't be trusted. Compare virtually any aspect of this to 2000 / Bush v. Gore where multiple recounts and audits were allowed even well after the election. That's the question. Why can't we look???
Read pages 16-19 of the case I linked. You are just asserting the claim "was not valid" but it's in black and white in the PA constitution. If they wanted to change they constitution, they would have required all kinds of things such as newspaper ads to make sure the public knows etc. However, they did none of that so Title 77 is constitutionally invalid.
Honestly this "brother in law" thing is starting to sound like bullshit to me and you are likely just another new account shill.
Also the "not enough votes" argument is also nonsense. Read the TX SCOTUS case. Read the Navarro Reports. There are more than enough votes in question in PA.
Sorry, I'm probably not communicating well. Here's the actual case document if you want to read it (with the PA defense that I outlined).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162968/20201208090425848_20A98%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20efile.pdf
I didn't just say the "claim was not valid". I gave a couple of specific reasons why it was not (according to the docket). Again, the document will be much specific and clear than I can be, if you want to read it.
I also said the votes related to the PA Supreme Court rulings were not enough, not that votes related to the constitutional claim weren't enough.
I understand these are hard questions and I might be labeled a shill for asking them. I'm willing to take that risk for the truth. There's a lot of people like me asking questions and looking for better answers/truth than we're getting from the MSM. I was just accepting a lot of what I was hearing until my family started giving all this other information. This debate with them has been difficult.
I am not persuaded by the may/shall argument in the slightest. Do you really believe they are arguing honestly when they say the revision from may to shall somehow means that shall establishes a floor of what the legislature can do which they can go beyond?? English is my native language so I happen to know that if someone changes something to shall (i.e. must), they are strengthening the language to make sure people know not to violate this clause. May gives permission. Shall is a command.
Furthermore, SCOTUS never ruled on the merits and the PA Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits as well. The only judge in PA that ever ruled on merits (not just on procedural crap like mootness, ripeness, laches, etc) said that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on those merits.
Update: And by the way, check out the Mathews v. Paynter case they cite for their brilliant may/shall argument. It's a laughable comparison. Whereas in that case a clause stipulating a list of what offenses "shall be subject to disciplinary action" was argued to not be an exhaustive or exclusive list, quite clearly the intent of Article VII, section 14 of the PA constitution is to list all of the reasons one can vote absentee. These people are not honest in their arguments.
Right, the claim is the shall strengthens the floor for the absentee voting provisions, a minimal requirement, but doesn't limit extending the absentee voting provisions (including allowing anyone to vote by mail). I don't know if they are arguing honestly (can't read minds), but it does make logical sense. Part of the problem is that Republicans didn't question the new law (that they originally authored and passed) until after the election, although it had been enacted a year earlier. Such a tangled mess...
Third party here. It's clearly not a floor, it's an exception. Otherwise it would contradict the effective in-person voting requirement that's also specified.
A good example would be, imagine if the exception clause didn't exist at all. So there were no clause about absentee voting at all in the constitution. It would be interpreted then as you must offer your vote in person. Not that it's some "floor" and you can add as many exceptions to that as you want.
Also since my guess is you're on the left politically and here for some sort debate (now that reddit and twitter have become far left echo chambers), my question for you is: how do you justify the video that came out of Georgia? They have an electronic record of ballots, they could have easily checked who those ballots went for and allowed bipartisan investigation, including interviews of those involved, yet they didn't do that or at least make any of it known publically or to the Trump campaign. Seems so egregious to me that such a lack of transparency becomes then evidence of guilt. So how do you justify it? Just curious.
I don't think it makes logical sense at all. One has to have no historical understanding to believe that the reason they enumerated the list of reasons one could vote absentee in the constitution wasn't precisely to encapsulate every valid reason to vote absentee.
And while I agree with you that Republicans didn't question their own law, the constitutionality of Title 77 is not what most people are concerned about. It's that Title 77 itself was further modified by the PA Supreme Court. That's the big question in this election that SCOTUS cowardly failed to address: Do officials such as Secretaries of State and courts such as the biased PA Supreme Court have the authority to modify elections laws?
I think in some ways you are allowing the your family to distract you. The onus is not upon us to prove fraud occurred.
The onus was upon law enforcement to investigate things like the truck driver shipping ballots from NY to PA or the USPS whistleblowers saying they were ordered to illegally backdate ballots. They failed.
The onus was upon the courts to adjudicate these issues rather than dismissing cases on procedural grounds. They failed.
The onus was on county and state officials to preserve evidence and conduct audits such as signature matches. They failed.
The onus was upon courts and others to order that voting software and other voting machine internals cannot be proprietary and must be auditable. They failed.
What you should be arguing to your family is that we were not allowed to look and therefore the election can't be trusted. Compare virtually any aspect of this to 2000 / Bush v. Gore where multiple recounts and audits were allowed even well after the election. That's the question. Why can't we look???