What about what happened violated the US Constitution? The states violated their own Constitutions. You can make the argument that SCOTUS didn't fulfill their oath by not taking up the Texas case which was a constitutional case but SCOTUS does this all they time, especially when it comes to 2nd Amendment cases so we shouldn't be surprised. I think what I'm saying is that the problem is with the STATES, not the Federal government. Remember, anything that can happen Federally can often be undone by another set of leaders, witness the back and forth on Executive orders. I feel you.. I would love this assholes to get the full weight brought down on them but I don't think that is the problem.
Let's do as you suggest, then, and disregard Article 3, Section 2, which mandates that the Supreme Court "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... to Controversies between two or more State," and that "those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," simply because they ignore it all the time.
Beyond that, there is also Article 2, Section 1 which specifies that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This article does not allow for State Governors, Judiciaries, or other appointed officials to make changes to those "Manners," which clearly happened in at least the contested States of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. Thus, their very election processes violated the Constitution, making them unequivocally unconstitutional. That is, while the states may have violated their own Constitutions, in so doing they also violated the US Constitution.
I think you mis read what i said. I agree with you... 100%. Article3 sec2. i said you could argue SCOTUS was not faithful to their oath in not taking the Texas case. However, they so this ALL THE TIME when they refuse to take up 2nd amendment cases, specifically acess to CCW across state lines. Other licences are recognized. . otherwise a marrage from the Elvis chapel in LV wouldn't be legal in the other 49.
As to what you said about Articke 2 sec1.. your making my point. I said the problem exists in the STATES. . meaning the legislators there. They didnt follow their own set of rules.
We are on the same side. No one will be happier if something big happens to make this all set the game pieces back to normal.
I love this back and forth and i appreciate your passion. We all here at Patriot. win have it and i believe that you and i are resonable folks who can debate these points and i wish i could sit down with you with a beer. Id love to hear if you agree.
Ha perhaps we are talking about the same elephant after all! I will say that I think relegating a violation of the Constitution to being simply the legislative problems of one (or several) states is somewhat sidestepping the crux of the question "What about what happened violated the US Constitution?" But I'll also say that I really do think we're on the same team on this, and that I would love the opportunity to sit down and and talk more with you over a beer (or many)! I'm glad we have this place to meet and talk until then!
What about what happened violated the US Constitution? The states violated their own Constitutions. You can make the argument that SCOTUS didn't fulfill their oath by not taking up the Texas case which was a constitutional case but SCOTUS does this all they time, especially when it comes to 2nd Amendment cases so we shouldn't be surprised. I think what I'm saying is that the problem is with the STATES, not the Federal government. Remember, anything that can happen Federally can often be undone by another set of leaders, witness the back and forth on Executive orders. I feel you.. I would love this assholes to get the full weight brought down on them but I don't think that is the problem.
Let's do as you suggest, then, and disregard Article 3, Section 2, which mandates that the Supreme Court "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... to Controversies between two or more State," and that "those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," simply because they ignore it all the time.
Beyond that, there is also Article 2, Section 1 which specifies that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This article does not allow for State Governors, Judiciaries, or other appointed officials to make changes to those "Manners," which clearly happened in at least the contested States of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. Thus, their very election processes violated the Constitution, making them unequivocally unconstitutional. That is, while the states may have violated their own Constitutions, in so doing they also violated the US Constitution.
I think you mis read what i said. I agree with you... 100%. Article3 sec2. i said you could argue SCOTUS was not faithful to their oath in not taking the Texas case. However, they so this ALL THE TIME when they refuse to take up 2nd amendment cases, specifically acess to CCW across state lines. Other licences are recognized. . otherwise a marrage from the Elvis chapel in LV wouldn't be legal in the other 49. As to what you said about Articke 2 sec1.. your making my point. I said the problem exists in the STATES. . meaning the legislators there. They didnt follow their own set of rules. We are on the same side. No one will be happier if something big happens to make this all set the game pieces back to normal. I love this back and forth and i appreciate your passion. We all here at Patriot. win have it and i believe that you and i are resonable folks who can debate these points and i wish i could sit down with you with a beer. Id love to hear if you agree.
Ha perhaps we are talking about the same elephant after all! I will say that I think relegating a violation of the Constitution to being simply the legislative problems of one (or several) states is somewhat sidestepping the crux of the question "What about what happened violated the US Constitution?" But I'll also say that I really do think we're on the same team on this, and that I would love the opportunity to sit down and and talk more with you over a beer (or many)! I'm glad we have this place to meet and talk until then!