Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
It is Crooked Ken's way of begging Tramp for a pardon!!!An AG that is under investigation in Texass for abuse of office and taking kickbacks is suing several states claiming they are violating law...Irony at its best.
In the UNANIMOUS words of the Supreme CourtThe complaint about Republican poll watchers being denied access to votes being counted is in the Texas lawsuit,
On page 16
49. Pennsylvania’s election law also requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: “Watchers shall be permitted to be present when the envelopes containing official absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are opened and when such ballots are counted and recorded.” 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b). Local election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties decided not to follow 25 PA. STAT. § 3146.8(b) for the opening, counting, and recording of absentee and mail-in ballots.
This is beyond dispute as there was video evidence of obstruction of Republican poll watchers. It is crooked, illegal, immoral and unlawful.
No state would change any voting laws or rules two weeks before an election..They did rule on it and said it was too late to argue the execution of the legislation.For the mail in ballots because of the pandemic which is the same the majority of other states did.That is yer jist from a media outlet have you researched to find that Pennsylvania did use the process of legislature to okay the changes to the election?
What process of the legislature was used to change election laws in Pa.
I thought it was the state Supreme Court, not the legislatures, that rule on the mail-in ballot stuff?
Why was it needed to change the laws on mail-in ballots 2 weeks before the election?
And is so "invisible" it can't be seen or proved as if it never happened!!!!!Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur.
Dont mess with Texas, ya freaking commies!
Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules
Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court before midnight on Monday challenging election results in four other states.www.breitbart.com
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.…This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article III provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.
Yuh huh.
And just HOW exactly is Texas "injured" by what the fuck some other state is doing? Hm?
The reference Article II Section 1 Clause 2 reads, and we know it well by now:
>> 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. <<
Read it again --- "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". Not "in such Manner as the AG of Frickin' Texas may direct".
This clown should be disbarred.
So tell the class, where does it say the State SOS can enter into a consent decree and alter what the legislature directed? Dumb fucking commie.
Maybe this post comes in English.
Maybe not.
www.foxnews.com
They ALL contained LOTS of evidence for what I said, and you obviously did not read them, or else you're lying.Not one of those links contained any evidence for what you are suggesting, you shameless liar. As anyone can see for themselves. And we all know you never read any of them anyway.
Upon what do you base that ?It will likely be DENIED,
ALL have been proven, and many times over."With all the claims of fraud"
With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
How isn't it ?Then explain why Texas isn’t holding itself to the same standards as these “cheater” states?
No, it's NOT based on that, Mr information-deprived liberal. It's based on the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.You mean with a lawsuit based on a Trump tweet that he deleted because he got it wrong? That's you're idea of Constitutional, gramps?
I'm not senile, and you must be BLIND. The graph clearly shows Q2-2018 as 4.2% with the bar reaching right above the 4.0. You're looking at the wrong graph (the BEA cooked one) I'm talking about the graph before the cooking >>>No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
Where they haven't had Democrat judges.Which is why you’re 1-57 in court with your allegations.
I can’t recall ever seeing so many people completely detached from reality as the Trump cult.
Seriously, where else would a group of people who’ve lost virtually every single time think they are winning?
Your brain is fake news.When you regurgitate fake news all you prove is that you're a brainwashed minion.Dumbfuck, I quoted what is being reported about the Texas lawsuit.But the ones you call "biggest fucking idiots" know that this is a CONSTITUTIONAL lawsuit/issue (Article 2, Section 1), while you are still babbling about ballot applications. You still don't know what the hell this whole thing (1st 3 words of the OP title >LOLOLOL Can you not think for yourself?
Dumbfuck, they already mailed out 7.7 million applications. Everyone receiving one can check the box to automatically receive absentee ballots for future elections. Meaning....
a) there's no news reporting 7.7 million ballots were mailed unsolicited for the general election; and
b) ballots mailed out would have been based on 7.7 million ballot applications mailed out in the Spring; and
c) mailing out 7.7 million applications in the Spring to all registered voters in Michigan was done by computer. So if they were going to mail ballots in the fall, also by computer, there would have been more than 7.7 million registered voters as many people in Michigan registered to vote over the summer; and
d) this farce is based on a Trump tweet back in May which he himself deleted when it was brought to his attention that he got it wrong...
... and
e) rightards are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet. Your only hope of salvaging this fiasco lies in the hopes that AmericanThinker, who published this, got it wrong and that Texas isn't really suing over this.
Texas Files Lawsuit
is about, and you're displaying that with flying colors.
And while a bunch of states have lined up behind Texas, a bunch of other states have lined up behind the Constitution...
WASHINGTON — More than two dozen states filed motions with the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing Texas' bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's wins in four battleground states, a long-shot legal move that Pennsylvania blasted as a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."
ALL have been proven, and many times over."With all the claims of fraud"
With all the claims of fraud, of which none have been proven.
There ^^^ fixed that for ya.
You're fucked in the head, gramps. We're talking about the claim that Michigan mailed out 7.7 million unsolicited ballots. If you think that's based on the Constitution, show where the Constitution mentions 7.7 million unsolicited ballots.....No, it's NOT based on that, Mr information-deprived liberal. It's based on the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.You mean with a lawsuit based on a Trump tweet that he deleted because he got it wrong? That's you're idea of Constitutional, gramps?
Some people have to be told twice (or is it 5 times now ?)
LOLI'm not senile, and you must be BLIND. The graph clearly shows Q2-2018 as 4.2% with the bar reaching right above the 4.0. You're looking at the wrong graph (the BEA cooked one) I'm talking about the graph before the cooking >>>No, gramps, you're senile -- that graph shows Q2-2018 was 2.7%, not 4.2%.
View attachment 427621
They have no standing.Upon what do you base that ?It will likely be DENIED,
It will likely be DENIED, for Trumpet's sake, hopefully without comment.
....because if with comment, it would likely be excoriating!
Pennsylvania accuses Texas of seeking 'to decimate the electorate' in fiery Supreme Court brief
In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia and Pennsylvania slammed the Texas effort to prevent those two states, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, from casting their electoral votes as a "meritless" effort to "decimate the electorate of the United States."
