Did NC and TX change their Voting Procedure?

[RetiredGySgt]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

 

[candycorn]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

 

[candycorn]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

I showed you the evidence earlier....

So this means that Texas is suing other states for something it did as well, right?

 

[Shelzin]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

I showed you the evidence earlier....

View attachment 427221

So this means that Texas is suing other states for something it did as well, right?

Maybe... Sue them back... Throw the whole election out and do it again... I'm good with that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

I showed you the evidence earlier....

View attachment 427221

So this means that Texas is suing other states for something it did as well, right?

Not necessarily you would have to look up Texas law.

 

[Pogo]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

 

[Pogo]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

The FUCK they do. Texas governs Texas ---- not North Cackalackee. PERIOD. Show the class where the capital of Wisconsin is "Austin".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

The FUCK they do. Texas governs Texas ---- not North Cackalackee. PERIOD.

Sorry RETARD but those 4 states VIOLATED the law. You remember that right? The Constitution is clear as a bell. And if they violated the voting law they violated the rights of ALL the States.

 

[Pogo]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

The FUCK they do. Texas governs Texas ---- not North Cackalackee. PERIOD.

Sorry RETARD but those 4 states VIOLATED the law. You remember that right? The Constitution is clear as a bell. And if they violated the voting law they violated the rights of ALL the States.

You're actually sitting on this board claiming that Pennsylvania "violated" TEXAS LAW?

Where in the wide world of blue fuck does Texas have ANY jurisdiction whatsoever over fucking WISCONSN?

FUCK outta here.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Election 2020: US Supreme Court determines NC voting rules | Raleigh News & Observer

And in TX.

How split-ticket voting might have affected some election outcomes in Texas | The Texas Tribune

What appears to have been their lifeline was a willingness of some Texas voters to split their tickets, rejecting Trump but nonetheless pulling the levers for the Republican Party’s other candidates. And it may have been aided by lawmakers’ decision to eliminate straight-ticket voting in the state, starting with this year’s election.

I hear that WI, MI, AZ, PA, NV and GA are developing a counter lawsuit against TX, what comes around goes around.

Did their state legislature legislate the change? Was that even necessary per the federal constitution since the presidential option may be the only one subject to federal constitution rules?

 

[Winco]

Election 2020: US Supreme Court determines NC voting rules | Raleigh News & Observer

And in TX.

How split-ticket voting might have affected some election outcomes in Texas | The Texas Tribune

What appears to have been their lifeline was a willingness of some Texas voters to split their tickets, rejecting Trump but nonetheless pulling the levers for the Republican Party’s other candidates. And it may have been aided by lawmakers’ decision to eliminate straight-ticket voting in the state, starting with this year’s election.

I hear that WI, MI, AZ, PA, NV and GA are developing a counter lawsuit against TX, what comes around goes around.

Did their state legislature legislate the change? Was that even necessary per the federal constitution since the presidential option may be the only one subject to federal constitution rules?

I’m looking for proof from your response.
Why was what WI MI PA GA NV AZ assuming to be illegal whereas whatTX and NC did was perfectly legal.
The burden of proof is on you dude.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Election 2020: US Supreme Court determines NC voting rules | Raleigh News & Observer

And in TX.

How split-ticket voting might have affected some election outcomes in Texas | The Texas Tribune

What appears to have been their lifeline was a willingness of some Texas voters to split their tickets, rejecting Trump but nonetheless pulling the levers for the Republican Party’s other candidates. And it may have been aided by lawmakers’ decision to eliminate straight-ticket voting in the state, starting with this year’s election.

I hear that WI, MI, AZ, PA, NV and GA are developing a counter lawsuit against TX, what comes around goes around.

Did their state legislature legislate the change? Was that even necessary per the federal constitution since the presidential option may be the only one subject to federal constitution rules?

I’m looking for proof from your response.
Why was what WI MI PA GA NV AZ assuming to be illegal whereas whatTX and NC did was perfectly legal.
The burden of proof is on you dude.

I just listed the specific parameter. If you know if this applies to down-ballot races or not let us know. Your link didn’t specify.
My guess is that it doesn’t since the link didn’t mention it.

 

[candycorn]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

I showed you the evidence earlier....

View attachment 427221

So this means that Texas is suing other states for something it did as well, right?

Not necessarily you would have to look up Texas law.

Some legislators sued the governor for extending it.

Earlier you wrote:

"In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature......."

 

[candycorn]

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In such manner as the LEGISLATURE therof may direct...... Not the Governor not the secretary of State, not a committee, the Legislature.......

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.

www.archives.gov

If the governor cannot issue a proclamation changing voting laws, then Texas is in violation of the very thing they are suing other states for then correct?

WE know for a fact that the 4 states in question violated their own laws. As for Texas you research it since you are making the claim.

I showed you the evidence earlier....

View attachment 427221

So this means that Texas is suing other states for something it did as well, right?

Maybe... Sue them back... Throw the whole election out and do it again... I'm good with that.

I'm not.
Your blob lost. *shrugs*

 

[Pogo]

Election 2020: US Supreme Court determines NC voting rules | Raleigh News & Observer

And in TX.

How split-ticket voting might have affected some election outcomes in Texas | The Texas Tribune

What appears to have been their lifeline was a willingness of some Texas voters to split their tickets, rejecting Trump but nonetheless pulling the levers for the Republican Party’s other candidates. And it may have been aided by lawmakers’ decision to eliminate straight-ticket voting in the state, starting with this year’s election.

I hear that WI, MI, AZ, PA, NV and GA are developing a counter lawsuit against TX, what comes around goes around.

Did their state legislature legislate the change? Was that even necessary per the federal constitution since the presidential option may be the only one subject to federal constitution rules?

What the state legs "direct" is the PROCESS by which the state selects Electors, which is in all 50 cases to hold a popular election and then to allocate their EVs according to that vote.

THAT'S IT. Nothing changed about that at all. That's the entire fulfillment of Article II, done.

Now show the class a state that is allocating its Electors based NOT on the popular election but on ----oh I dunno, let's say a whiny phone call from a meltdown POTUS who can't handle the fact that he lost ------------ and THEN you'll have a case.

 

[candycorn]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

The FUCK they do. Texas governs Texas ---- not North Cackalackee. PERIOD.

Sorry RETARD but those 4 states VIOLATED the law. You remember that right? The Constitution is clear as a bell. And if they violated the voting law they violated the rights of ALL the States.

So did Texas. The Texas legislature never voted to extend the voting period.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have not cited Texas state law, until you do you got nothing, Texas has cited the 4 states being sued law and it was violated.

 

[Rogue AI]

The sued states did not LEGALLY NOR CONSTITUTIONALLY change their system, IT requires an act of the Legislature in a State to change the process. By the Constitution.,

Whose Constitution? Each state has its own and the SC would probably not want to interfere.

The US Constitution applies to HOW presidential elections are decided READ it some time. It specifically gives the authority to STATE legislatures NOT Governors or committees.

Bullshit. The COTUS doesn't mention popular Presidential elections AT ALL. States were choosing EC Electors by non-popular vote methods as late as 1860.

AS directed BY the State Legislature. As the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says.

--- which has nothing to do with running elections. Once AGAIN the Constitution requires no elections.

Now then. Whatever the state legislature of, say, Pennsylvania decides, Texas has NO SAY IN IT.

In this case since the LEGISLATURE of the 4 states in question did NOT change their laws Texas does have a say as do the Courts.

The FUCK they do. Texas governs Texas ---- not North Cackalackee. PERIOD.

Sorry RETARD but those 4 states VIOLATED the law. You remember that right? The Constitution is clear as a bell. And if they violated the voting law they violated the rights of ALL the States.

So did Texas. The Texas legislature never voted to extend the voting period.
You can't have it both ways.

Aside from the fact Abbott's proclamation laid out all the necessary statutes to ensure it's legality, his actions could have changed the election results. Whereas the violations in question in the Texas lawsuit could. Totally different aspects of election law that simply do not compare. This is nothing but a red herring.