Yes, that was Kelly's claim, but it was not valid. Title 77 defines who must be allowed to use mail-in ballots. It doesn't limit who can be allowed to use mail-in ballots. (This is from the state's response to Kelly's U.S. Supreme Court complaint). I'm still researching the response related to the PA Supreme Court's decisions. Those were the arguments that were too complicated for me to understand. Unfortunately, AFAICT, the number of votes potentially affected by the PA Supreme Court decisions alone wouldn't be enough for Trump to win the state.
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.
Yes, that was Kelly's claim, but it was not valid. Title 77 defines who must be allowed to use mail-in ballots. It doesn't limit who can be allowed to use mail-in ballots. (This is from the state's response to Kelly's U.S. Supreme Court complaint). I'm still researching the response related to the PA Supreme Court's decisions. Those were the arguments that were too complicated for me to understand. Unfortunately, AFAICT, the number of votes potentially affected by the PA Supreme Court decisions alone wouldn't be enough for Trump to win the state.
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.