2024 Elections Will Be Rigged

#227
#227
BowlBrother85 said:
You don't understand what you are reading. The Law professor clearly states that election laws can be changed without new legislation. That is the very clear point made throughout the entire article. You are simply too stubborn to admit when you are wrong ... which you usually are.
Click to expand...

She doesn't state nor imply that, that's your defunct logic speaking. "So to say that all decisions about how elections are run must emanate from the legislature is not consistent with explicit delegated authority to state election officials." Greene clearly say the state does not attend to process in minute detail and the legislature has explicitly delegated certain authority to election officials. That doesn't contrast with what I've explained to you is being said; it agrees with it.

Further, SCOTUS turned down Paxton on the basis that TX had no business in other states election affairs, not whether those states had violated election code. The MI courts allowed mailing ballots to every voter on the basis MI's constitution provides right to absentee voting. WI rejected a lawsuit on the basis of not presenting a clear case.

Your article: "In practice, these clauses have been understood as allowing the legislature to set the ground rules for conducting the election, which are then subject to normal state processes: election administrators fix the details for administering the vote, state courts interpret the meaning of state election rules, and sometimes judges and officials decide when state rules violate state constitutional rights to vote," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at University of California, Irvine, in an article for Slate.

Again, none of that states 'certain officials' can make or change legislation, but that the legislature delegates process outside of law. Under those ground rules for conducting elections is where 'certain officials' get to operate, courts interpret the legislative rules intent and if the laws are constitutional.

Further still:
But the courts rejected the extreme remedies sought by Paxton, who sought to block four states from casting votes in the Electoral College.

Such challenges to election rule changes needed to have been raised before ballots were cast, said Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley. "The courts, therefore, were not going to penalize valid voters for alleged mistakes of election officials."

In a Minnesota case, days before the election, a court sided with Republicans who challenged a change by election officials over mail ballot deadlines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, citing Article 2 of the Constitution, ruled that an extended deadline for mail ballots likely violated the Constitution because the secretary of state has no power to override the state Legislature.

"There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution," the court wrote, ordering that late-arriving ballots be set aside.

You getting the picture yet? Okay....

On the other hand, many states have laws that allow officials to suspend statutes or regulations due to emergencies such as a pandemic. Some of these emergency laws are specifically about elections, while others are more broad.

Gee..."have laws that allow 'certain officials' to respond to extraordinary circumstances such as pandemics?! You mean laws created by the legislature, and in their absence there is no pandemic exclusion? Who knew??

I'm sure a spectacularly intelligent person such as yourself can understand this.
Your pal,
Mr. Wrong
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#229
#229
@BowlBrother85

"Incoming!!"

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.

The court ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not have the power to enact and change election laws. This power belongs to the state legislature.

Under Wisconsin law, drop boxes are illegal. The law requires absentee ballots to be returned by mail, or the voter must personally deliver them to the municipal clerk. This ruling upheld the rule of law in elections: Election laws cannot be suspended before an election. That leads to chaos and distrust in results.

This is not the first state to have violated its own laws in the 2020 election.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment.
Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#230
#230
NCFisher said:
@BowlBrother85

"Incoming!!"

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.

The court ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not have the power to enact and change election laws. This power belongs to the state legislature.

Under Wisconsin law, drop boxes are illegal. The law requires absentee ballots to be returned by mail, or the voter must personally deliver them to the municipal clerk. This ruling upheld the rule of law in elections: Election laws cannot be suspended before an election. That leads to chaos and distrust in results.

This is not the first state to have violated its own laws in the 2020 election.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment.
Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020
Click to expand...


I believe the PA Supreme Court upheld the no-excuse absentee voting law. Funny that 11 Republicans who voted for the law in 2019 turned around and voted to kill the law they passed less than three years later--for no reason other than the bull$hit lies spouted by Trump. In any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the PA law still stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#231
#231
NCFisher said:
She doesn't state nor imply that, that's your defunct logic speaking. "So to say that all decisions about how elections are run must emanate from the legislature is not consistent with explicit delegated authority to state election officials." Greene clearly say the state does not attend to process in minute detail and the legislature has explicitly delegated certain authority to election officials. That doesn't contrast with what I've explained to you is being said; it agrees with it.

Further, SCOTUS turned down Paxton on the basis that TX had no business in other states election affairs, not whether those states had violated election code. The MI courts allowed mailing ballots to every voter on the basis MI's constitution provides right to absentee voting. WI rejected a lawsuit on the basis of not presenting a clear case.

Your article: "In practice, these clauses have been understood as allowing the legislature to set the ground rules for conducting the election, which are then subject to normal state processes: election administrators fix the details for administering the vote, state courts interpret the meaning of state election rules, and sometimes judges and officials decide when state rules violate state constitutional rights to vote," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at University of California, Irvine, in an article for Slate.

Again, none of that states 'certain officials' can make or change legislation, but that the legislature delegates process outside of law. Under those ground rules for conducting elections is where 'certain officials' get to operate, courts interpret the legislative rules intent and if the laws are constitutional.

Further still:
But the courts rejected the extreme remedies sought by Paxton, who sought to block four states from casting votes in the Electoral College.

Such challenges to election rule changes needed to have been raised before ballots were cast, said Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley. "The courts, therefore, were not going to penalize valid voters for alleged mistakes of election officials."

In a Minnesota case, days before the election, a court sided with Republicans who challenged a change by election officials over mail ballot deadlines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, citing Article 2 of the Constitution, ruled that an extended deadline for mail ballots likely violated the Constitution because the secretary of state has no power to override the state Legislature.

"There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution," the court wrote, ordering that late-arriving ballots be set aside.

You getting the picture yet? Okay....

On the other hand, many states have laws that allow officials to suspend statutes or regulations due to emergencies such as a pandemic. Some of these emergency laws are specifically about elections, while others are more broad.

Gee..."have laws that allow 'certain officials' to respond to extraordinary circumstances such as pandemics?! You mean laws created by the legislature, and in their absence there is no pandemic exclusion? Who knew??

I'm sure a spectacularly intelligent person such as yourself can understand this.
Your pal,
Mr. Wrong
Click to expand...

You only left out one thing. Pick the right judge and you can get the answer you want need for any issue.

The thing that really gets me is that if you can drag the issue out until after the event, then you can always get the part about to change things now would "be unfair" because how people voted or did whatever was based on what was in effect at the time. The weird part about that is that with election season rather than election day, millions of voters could have voted before an event, an announcement, or a judgement that would have changed how they voted. I'm not a fan of early voting (especially extreme early voting) or not needing to vote in person where the process is validated and the voter identified. If you can't make the effort to go vote, then your opinion shouldn't be considered worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1, NCFisher and Orangeburst
#232
#232
NCFisher said:
@BowlBrother85

"Incoming!!"

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.

The court ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not have the power to enact and change election laws. This power belongs to the state legislature.

Under Wisconsin law, drop boxes are illegal. The law requires absentee ballots to be returned by mail, or the voter must personally deliver them to the municipal clerk. This ruling upheld the rule of law in elections: Election laws cannot be suspended before an election. That leads to chaos and distrust in results.

This is not the first state to have violated its own laws in the 2020 election.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment.
Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020
Click to expand...

Might want to look into that Pennsylvania case.
 
#234
#234
turbovol said:
I believe the PA Supreme Court upheld the no-excuse absentee voting law. Funny that 11 Republicans who voted for the law in 2019 turned around and voted to kill the law they passed less than three years later--for no reason other than the bull$hit lies spouted by Trump. In any case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the PA law still stands.
Click to expand...

I believe you're right; just looked it up. Appears Repubs are stating an appeal to SCOTUS and a parallel 'inseverability' challenge. If the PA constitution says such law requires amendment via popular vote, I don't see a Dem win at SCOTUS. Regardless of who voted for it in the Assembly, the legislature or PA SC cannot simply set aside the state constitution.
 
#236
#236
AM64 said:
You only left out one thing. Pick the right judge and you can get the answer you want need for any issue.

The thing that really gets me is that if you can drag the issue out until after the event, then you can always get the part about to change things now would "be unfair" because how people voted or did whatever was based on what was in effect at the time. The weird part about that is that with election season rather than election day, millions of voters could have voted before an event, an announcement, or a judgement that would have changed how they voted. I'm not a fan of early voting (especially extreme early voting) or not needing to vote in person where the process is validated and the voter identified. If you can't make the effort to go vote, then your opinion shouldn't be considered worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the inherent problem; if states can bypass election statute and a challenge isn't brought by an inept legislature or such changes leave no reasonable time to do so, there really is no remedy post-election.
I don't care for early voting either but don't have a substantial problem with a few days of election period. Weeks? - nah. Not a fan of expanded absentee voting either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#238
#238
Rasputin_Vol said:
You endorsing Mittens should be enough for people to realize that he is a clown.
Click to expand...
lol.
Just pointing out the total hypocrisy from the right wing PF posters.
They want the left to put up a moderate but would not even consider putting up a moderate from the right.
I, on the other hand, would be thrilled to see both sides put up a moderate.

In fact, a Romney type president is exactly what this country needs to turn the tide of this insane ever increasing extremism and partisanship. (Think exact opposite of Trump)
 
#239
#239
luthervol said:
lol.
Just pointing out the total hypocrisy from the right wing PF posters.
They want the left to put up a moderate but would not even consider putting up a moderate from the right.
I, on the other hand, would be thrilled to see both sides put up a moderate.

In fact, a Romney type president is exactly what this country needs to turn the tide of this insane ever increasing extremism and partisanship. (Think exact opposite of Trump)
Click to expand...

You clowns wouldn't recognize a moderate if you tripped over one. Your game has been shift left and call it center, and repeat continually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, davethevol, BreatheUT and 4 others
#240
#240
Vol8188 said:
I’m not saying he actually won Georgia by any means. But the pipe burst thing was weird
Click to expand...
I have it directly from a friend that the pipe bursting in Mercedes Benz was completely fabricated.

He's another architect who works for the firm that helped with Construction Administration on the stadium. They are still involved with projects in the stadium to this day. He said that there were absolutely no water issues in the stadium anywhere close to that time. they had been sued about some previous water issues, so them and the owner's reps were hyper sensitive to any and all water damage. only way it happened and he didn't hear about he said is if the late night crew could have handled it. he said if it required people to leave, there was no way the late night crew could have handled it. and also he would have seen the work order ($$$) come through, so not only would the night crew had to have handled it, but they apparently didn't use anything that had to be replaced, nothing had to be cleaned, and no outside equipment brought in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#241
#241
LouderVol said:
I have it directly from a friend that the pipe bursting in Mercedes Benz was completely fabricated.

He's another architect who works for the firm that helped with Construction Administration on the stadium. They are still involved with projects in the stadium to this day. He said that there were absolutely no water issues in the stadium anywhere close to that time. they had been sued about some previous water issues, so them and the owner's reps were hyper sensitive to any and all water damage. only way it happened and he didn't hear about he said is if the late night crew could have handled it. he said if it required people to leave, there was no way the late night crew could have handled it. and also he would have seen the work order ($$$) come through, so not only would the night crew had to have handled it, but they apparently didn't use anything that had to be replaced, nothing had to be cleaned, and no outside equipment brought in.
Click to expand...


Wow.
 
#243
#243
LouderVol said:
I have it directly from a friend that the pipe bursting in Mercedes Benz was completely fabricated.

He's another architect who works for the firm that helped with Construction Administration on the stadium. They are still involved with projects in the stadium to this day. He said that there were absolutely no water issues in the stadium anywhere close to that time. they had been sued about some previous water issues, so them and the owner's reps were hyper sensitive to any and all water damage. only way it happened and he didn't hear about he said is if the late night crew could have handled it. he said if it required people to leave, there was no way the late night crew could have handled it. and also he would have seen the work order ($$$) come through, so not only would the night crew had to have handled it, but they apparently didn't use anything that had to be replaced, nothing had to be cleaned, and no outside equipment brought in.
Click to expand...
Could that be because the pipe burst occurred at State Farm Arena? That’s what every news report about it on the first page of Google results said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#244
#244
LouderVol said:
I have it directly from a friend that the pipe bursting in Mercedes Benz was completely fabricated.

He's another architect who works for the firm that helped with Construction Administration on the stadium. They are still involved with projects in the stadium to this day. He said that there were absolutely no water issues in the stadium anywhere close to that time. they had been sued about some previous water issues, so them and the owner's reps were hyper sensitive to any and all water damage. only way it happened and he didn't hear about he said is if the late night crew could have handled it. he said if it required people to leave, there was no way the late night crew could have handled it. and also he would have seen the work order ($$$) come through, so not only would the night crew had to have handled it, but they apparently didn't use anything that had to be replaced, nothing had to be cleaned, and no outside equipment brought in.
Click to expand...

There was one goal and that was to remove the watchers. Everybody was supposedly ordered out, the count closed, and shortly later the workers were recalled and the watchers weren't. The best manufactured end run they could come up with - makes you wonder how far in advance the plan was hatched. Funny a phone call needed to be investigated, but a non-event that withdrew watchers wasn't considered worthy of scrutiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top