7 States Join Texas Lawsuit to Overturn UNCONSTITUTIONAL Election, Its Happening

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe Kavanaugh is too busy drinking beer to update the website. Or is just waiting on a new cover page to be made.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Maybe Kavanaugh is too busy drinking beer to update the website. Or is just waiting on a new cover page to be made.

No, it gets updated fairly quickly as petitions come in. The Pennsylvania petition was updated 8 times yesterday in a matter of a few hours as amicus petitions came in.

Then, of course it got DENIED.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think they are just trying to prevent upheaval, unfortunately thou, this is a serious case, in regards to the constitution. Which should be important and unfortunately be that it may, worth focusing, and making sure things are being conducted in line with well our bloody government’s written rule of law.

As I said I can’t believe this is even happening.. in order to see it properly you have to put aside your political affiliations etc. especially if you’re a democrat, yet that’s hard to do, and also since the touch down has already been scored, the last thing they want to see is a flag. Any how hope for the best prepare for the worst, says my pessimistic views.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: sirlancelot

It is a question of the equal protection clause. That the rights retained by the people supersede the rights of the state. You know, that thing that allows abortion and marriage legal in all 50 states but prevent Jim Crow laws in certain states.

This can unify national standards of what eligible registered voter is. Because right now some states need 30 days residency and others 180 days. Or that a felon can vote while in prison or on probation or never again depending on which state you are in. This goes far beyond Trump and Biden/Harris.

So, is it your assertion there that every State's laws must mirror every other State's?

As well as advocating for the Federal government to tell the States how to run their elections according to a "national" standard?

Gosh and here I've been thinking that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (aka Amendment X)

a reply to: Bicent

Well from the Man himself.

The Twats
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!

What ever that means, ofcourse lots of folks are speculating martial law while others are begging for it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Might be waiting for the new CSA to identify themselves...I am not a staffer there. I just looked up the link to the case for the smarmy ones claiming it wasn’t there yet wouldn’t look for themselves.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think they are just trying to prevent upheaval, unfortunately thou, this is a serious case, in regards to the constitution. Which should be important and unfortunately be that it may, worth focusing, and making sure things are being conducted in line with well our bloody government’s written rule of law.

As I said I can’t believe this is even happening.. in order to see it properly you have to put aside your political affiliations etc. especially if you’re a democrat, yet that’s hard to do, and also since the touch down has already been scored, the last thing they want to see is a flag. Any how hope for the best prepare for the worst, says my pessimistic views.

The Constitution is very clear on certain matters, to wit, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'll support the Constitution over those who don't like the outcome of an election all day long.

Upheaval is inevitable.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Either way, it's just Texas at this time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree 💯 that document defines us, It should be sacred and treated as such. However archaic that sounds etc. it has kept us alive for hundreds of years.

Politics aside.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree 💯 that document defines us, I should be sacred and treated as such. However archaic that sounds etc. it has kept us alive for hundreds of years.

Absolutely.

Those that are trying to compare AG Paxton's pardon application to the history about voting rights are simply mistaken.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is the Constitution’s assertion that:

Article 4, Section 2
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can Texas prove that people in those four states disenfranchised the vote of people of Texas by special means...I think so.

a reply to: Gryphon66

By Paxton’s strange accounting, states should be able to intervene in their counterparts’ election procedures. It’s a silly argument that the court should reject completely. And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws. If Paxton were to prevail, imagine the attorney general of California licking his chops at the chance to go after Texas’ voter ID requirements.

He would have to prove that the Texas voter requirements disenfranchise voters nation-wide, because that's the point of this case. There's no guarantee the scotus will even hear it, but it won't be because Texas suit is frivolous, it will be whether the grounds they based it on are all covered under constitutional law such as...

“The voters vote. The officials count. These combined actions form “the election,” and the election must be decided on the day. States that failed to make a final selection of officeholder by midnight after Election Day have violated the statute, subjecting the nation at large to the very evils Congressionally mandated deadlines were drafted to prevent. Federal Election Day statutes were designed to curtail fraud, and to infuse a prima facie sense of integrity in our electoral process. But these States – in failing to obey Congressional deadlines – have flagrantly attempted to preempt federal law. This is certainly prohibited, and this is why the late election results are void.”

[The] congressional rule adopted under the Elections Clause (and its counterpart for the Executive Branch, Art. II, § 1, cl. 3) sets the date of the biennial election for federal offices, as “[t]he Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November… This provision, along with 2 U. S. C. § 1 (setting the same rule for electing Senators under the Seventeenth Amendment) and 3 U. S. C. § 1 (doing the same for selecting Presidential electors), mandates holding all elections for Congress and the Presidency on a single day throughout the Union.”

Link

The concept of the military being involved in such a revote, and that Flynn and other once-respected military officials, including retired Air Force three-star Thomas McInerney, would advocate martial law, raises alarms for constitutional scholars and military-civilian experts.

The idea is “preposterous,” said Bill Banks, a Syracuse University professor with expertise in constitutional and national security law.

“Apart from the fact that state and now federal investigators have found no evidence of election fraud that would change the election outcome, martial law has no place in the United States absent a complete breakdown of civil governing mechanisms,” he told Military Times.

Martial law, he added, “simply has the military in charge, subject only to military orders, not civilian law.”

It has not been invoked in the U.S. “since the attack on Pearl Harbor, and there is no likelihood or justification for martial law now,” said Banks. “Our civilian institutions have, in fact, revealed themselves to be resilient in responding to unprecedented partisan attacks on election administration and vote counting in state and local systems across the United States.”

Military Times

a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh I doubt martial law will be enacted. I think we need scotus’s wisdom here to get thing back aligned. In a nutshell. The partisan politics has kinda led everything astray. We need a semblance of balance at this moment.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh I doubt martial law will be enacted. I think we need scotus’s wisdom here to get thing back aligned. In a nutshell. The partisan politics has kinda led everything astray. We need a semblance of balance at this moment.

I'm not sure balance on the schedule yet.

a reply to: Gryphon66

IMO, any clearance those 2 have should be revoked. If they are "former" then they cannot be charged with sedition via a tribunal...but as civilians we can do all we can do to make sure they don't get their hands on state secrets or items that give them leverage for power.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, is it your assertion there that every State's laws must mirror every other State's?

No... no one has said that, the case doesn't say that, only you say that... trolls unite!

As well as advocating for the Federal government to tell the States how to run their elections according to a "national" standard?

No... no one has said that, the case doesn't say that, only you say that... trolls unite!

Gosh and here I've been thinking that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (aka Amendment X)

Irrelevant to your irrelevant off-topic trolling...

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
That does not include off topic posts and bickering.....those are not included in debate.


Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum
Terms And Conditions Of Use



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
This could include temporary POSTING BANS.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

For decades, Republicans have railed against frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts with specious claims, sometimes simply to grab attention or make a political point.

Now, in the increasingly ridiculous tenure of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, such suits are apparently part of the toolkit.

By Paxton’s strange accounting, states should be able to intervene in their counterparts’ election procedures. It’s a silly argument that the court should reject completely.

And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws. If Paxton were to prevail, imagine the attorney general of California licking his chops at the chance to go after Texas’ voter ID requirements.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Are they really arguing that they wasted tons of money on frivolous litigation and now republicans are doing it and its bad? Haha that's gold right there

EIGHT STATES HAVE JOINED TEXAS’ LAWSUIT: SUPREME COURT HAS PUT THE CASE ON THE DOCKET

First off, Democrats continue to be incapable of understanding Supreme Court actions – the SCOTUS denied the INJUNCTION in the Pennsylvania case BUT THE CASE ITSELF IS PROCEEDING, SO IGNORE DEMOCRAT CLAIMS THAT IT’S OVER.

And in another case – the Texas lawsuit regarding the unconstitutional way Democrat vote fraud affected election outcomes – that case has been put on the Supreme Court docket AND as of this writing EIGHT STATES HAVE JOINED TEXAS IN THE SUIT (links below) – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota. (UPDATE: THANK YOU TO MARK1 – IT IS NOW EIGHT STATES PLUS TEXAS – I left out Louisiana.) Hopefully even more will show some courage and join the suit so we can RESIST the Democrat vote fraud.