Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You do realise they had voted to allow all that and it was legal to do so.
No they didn't, they didn't modify their state constitutions. Their laws have to coincide with their constitutions or if they decide to modify their constitutions they have a process they need to follow.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE👆 Exactly, the other states had not broken their constitutions at all. More fake news for Trumpers. Rob, explained the changes made before the Election in fact.
Who cares what the Texas AG filed? The U.S. Supreme Court rejected it as meritless. He only filed it, because he is going to jail for unrelated crimes, and he was hoping senpai would notice him and give him a pardon.
Originally posted by snowdragon
No they didn't, they didn't modify their state constitutions. Their laws have to coincide with their constitutions or if they decide to modify their constitutions they have a process they need to follow.
Forgive my ignorance here, but wouldn't it be up to the states with the violations to challenge the election, not some other random state?
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
👆 Exactly, the other states had not broken their constitutions at all. More fake news for Trumpers. Rob, explained the changes made before the Election in fact.
That's not accurate and in the case of PA specifically:
{QUOTE]Sec. 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which … qualified electors who … are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability … may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the district in which they respectively reside.
The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967. Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution: 1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.[/QUOTE]
No excuse mail-in voting
The law creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which is currently required for voters using absentee ballots. Pennsylvania joins 31 other states and Washington, D.C. with mail-in voting that removes barriers to elections.
Laws have to coincide with the constitution or they aren't legal 😉 You ses they did violate their state constitution, easy to read and understand.
Originally posted by snowdragon
That's not accurate and in the case of PA specifically:{QUOTE]Sec. 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which … qualified electors who … are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability … may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the district in which they respectively reside.
The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967. Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution: 1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.
Laws have to coincide with the constitution or they aren't legal 😉 You ses they did violate their state constitution, easy to read and understand. [/QUOTE] Actually that last caveat is an opinion which will never be tested in law, as its not Texas's place to comment. Also easy to understand.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!Laws have to coincide with the constitution or they aren't legal 😉 You ses they did violate their state constitution, easy to read and understand.Actually that last caveat is an opinion which will never be tested in law, as its not Texas's place to comment. Also easy to understand. [/B]
Ha it was brought up in PA and the judges said, they took to long to appeal said law so tough titties....which still violates their state constitution.
Again, it's like you don't fully grasp all this but playing boo under your bridge 😉
Either way, like I said no judge will take up these cases, they don't want the backlash and it has little to do with right/wrong, legal/illegal.
I proved my point, violation of state constitutions. 😉
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who cares what the Texas AG filed? The U.S. Supreme Court rejected it as meritless. He only filed it, because he is going to jail for unrelated crimes, and he was hoping senpai would notice him and give him a pardon.
Did not know that, makes sense though.
Do you think Trump noticed and will be giving the TX AG a full pardon for free, or will Trump demand payment via "donations" still?
Seems Ted Cruz offered to present the case to the SC, knowing they'd not hear it, but wants to get in good with Trump's base now for his 2024 run.
Originally posted by RobtardTrump isn't giving anything unless he is getting something.
Did not know that, makes sense though.Do you think Trump noticed and will be giving the TX AG a full pardon for free, or will Trump demand payment via "donations" still?
Seems Ted Cruz offered to present the case to the SC, knowing they'd not hear it, but wants to get in good with Trump's base now for his 2024 run.
I wish Ted Cruz would just go away.
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems Ted Cruz offered to present the case to the SC, knowing they'd not hear it, but wants to get in good with Trump's base now for his 2024 run.
Interesting. I definitely enjoyed the last 4 years of Cruz but I don't think I could ignore my morals and vote for him in 2024.
Originally posted by RobtardThey probably will. They need someone to validate them and Ted is as good as anyone else at playing to their blissful ignorance.
True enough.Ted Cruz will run in 2024, his actions now are to that end. He's hoping Trumpers will flock to him.
Wouldn't surprised to see some others like Jim Jordan, Gaetz, or Crenshaw potentially throw their hats in the rings also. They may never be more popular or politically than they are now and they may try to capitalize on it.
Some of them may not go that route too hard leaving the safety of their bubble but I could see some do it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Did not know that, makes sense though.Do you think Trump noticed and will be giving the TX AG a full pardon for free, or will Trump demand payment via "donations" still?
Seems Ted Cruz offered to present the case to the SC, knowing they'd not hear it, but wants to get in good with Trump's base now for his 2024 run.
So far, Trump has only raised $200-million from his supporters for his "election defense fund." Which is only half of the $400-million he must repay his debtholders in-full on January 21st. So I suspect a donation will get him farther.