The Texas lawsuit and the possible end of our republic.

[bripat9643]

Where does the Constitution say that the SC cannot override a law passed by Congress?

Can the SC override a law passed by Congress for any reason they chose?

Supposedly they have to follow the Constitution, but they have simply ignored it numerous times.

The Constitution gives Congress the ability to set the date of voting for the electoral college.

Does the constitution given SCOTUS the authority to change it?

Did it give the SC the authority to change our marriage laws?

 

[bripat9643]

You're changing the subject.

It's illustrative.

Trump wrote a law, against the constitution, based on emergency authority. That was found constitutional by SCOTUS.

So did the governors of the states.

It's a non sequitur, dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

Did it give the SC the authority to change our marriage laws?

It gave them authority to determine if laws violate the constitution, which it did in terms of gay marriage which violated the protections of the fourteenth amendment.

So tell me, where would SCOTUS get the authority to change the voting date for the electoral college?

 

[colfax_m]

It's a non sequitur, dumbass.

It’s not a non-sequitor. It’s an extremely relevant analogous situation.

Emergency authority granted by the legislature allows the executive to change laws and it’s entirely constitutional.

 

[SC Patriot]

What's unconstitutional about the SC moving the date because of wholesale election fraud?

The fact that the Constitution does not give them the authority to do that.

and the constitution does not give one man or one woman the authority to change election law.

Depends on what precisely you mean by change election law. Because sometimes the legislatures has given governors the authority to change laws in settings of emergencies and that's what a lot of governs did in some circumstances.

The Constitution doesn't give governors authority to change election law, ever. Furthermore, this whole "state of emergency" thing is a flagrant violation of the Constitution. Where does the Constitution authorize it?

Does the constitution give Trump authority to change the law?

When did he change the law?
Just an FYI...ant executive order is subject to be reviewed to see if it undermines existing law....but Trump has never been accused of changing law.
And if he was? It would first be reviewed by the judiciary committee and then, if necessary work its way through lower courts and ultimately the supreme court if necessary.
What law did he change that you are referring to? I would like to know.

 

[westwall]

And nobody will care when you get strung up either, chinese stooge.

Are you saying this poster is going to be hanged?

What is with you guys and your violent fantasies?

toro is a well known sock puppet. And when the corrupt ruling elite place themselves above the laws of the land they leave only one recourse. They have provably done so in this case. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that china owns the democrat party so the war is against china and their minions in the democrat Party. You asked for the war, you're going to get it.

We have been very peaceful as you assholes riot and and loot, and burn cities down. You attack people at random, and murder those you can. We have had enough. It is not our violent fantasies you feckless clod. It is the end result of a continuous campaign of violence BEGUN by YOU, that has put us in this place. My only sadness is that I am too old to do much other than support.

If the SCOTUS refuses to do its job, then the result is very predictable.

 

[SC Patriot]

You're changing the subject.

It's illustrative.

Trump wrote a law, against the constitution, based on emergency authority. That was found constitutional by SCOTUS.

So did the governors of the states.

What law did he write? Sorry, but Presidents don't write law. A law has a process. First an idea by a congressperson or a coalition of congresspeople, ,then a bill, is drafted, then voted on by congress, then confirmed by the senate and then to the POTUS desk for signature or veto.
Saying he wrote a law does not add up. That is impossible. Law has a well defined process that has never changed over two hundred plus years.
What are you referring to?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The founders created a republic. The traitors to the republic are working to pervert the Republic into a democracy that they can control through manipulation.

 

[colfax_m]

When did he change the law?

He made an appropriation for his border wall which was not approved by Congress.
The constitution specifically states that all money spent has to be done by appropriations from Congress.

 

[colfax_m]

The founders created a republic. The traitors to the republic are working to pervert the Republic into a democracy that they can control through manipulation.

I love this line.

What exactly do you mean by people are trying to turn the Republic into a Democracy?

 

[colfax_m]

If the SCOTUS refuses to do its job, then the result is very predictable.

Go on. Predict the results for me.

 

[SC Patriot]

And nobody will care when you get strung up either, chinese stooge.

Are you saying this poster is going to be hanged?

What is with you guys and your violent fantasies?

I suggest you recognize sarcasm when you see it. Otherwise you will always be praying you had eyes in the back of your head. And it isnt worth it. No one from this board will have anyway of knowing who you are and where you live.
Chill.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a non sequitur, dumbass.

It’s not a non-sequitor. It’s an extremely relevant analogous situation.

Emergency authority granted by the legislature allows the executive to change laws and it’s entirely constitutional.

It's a non sequitur.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When did he change the law?

He made an appropriation for his border wall which was not approved by Congress.
The constitution specifically states that all money spent has to be done by appropriations from Congress.

A president cannot make an appropriation.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

 

[colfax_m]

A president cannot make an appropriation.

But Trump did. Congress never approved his little border wall.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

What's the logical connection?

 

[SC Patriot]

The founders created a republic. The traitors to the republic are working to pervert the Republic into a democracy that they can control through manipulation.

I love this line.

What exactly do you mean by people are trying to turn the Republic into a Democracy?

We have states. All with their own laws....but all governed by federal law. In a way, we are 50 small "countries" with our own constitutions, but governed by an agreed upon guideline....the national/federal constitution.
If we went in the direction of being a democracy, no state will have decision making. Only the federal government can set laws.

Now, that may seem like a reasonable direction to go. But is it?

Should the federal law say "you are allowed to own a herd cows" to accomodate Texas....but then people in NYC have the right to own a herd of cows as well becuase it is the law of the land? How will than pan out. Imagine the guy on the 5th floor of a walk up in NYC owning 20 cattle.

Sure, as a democracy, laws can be set to accommodate certain areas....but is that fair?

That is why us being a republic is a good thing.....and it works.

 

[bodecea]

I have faith in our Conservative court to not only reject this ridiculous claim but to admonish EVERY Republican who endorses it.

Why should Republicans be "admonished" for protesting against stolen elections? There is really little point in spending the time or money to run for office if you are going to be swindled.

Further, no one will contribute to an election campaign that has no chance of succeeding because of fraud.

Because it wasn't stolen. For the first time in many election cycles, the Republican tactic of voter suppression was largely removed. Granted, it was because of the pandemic (which I'd like to point out was made worse by the lack of response from the WH and impeded by the Republican party). Individual states made their own election rules. It is up to the state to set those rules. If you truly believe in the Constitution, then you believe in state's rights. If not, it's just bullshit talk. You believe in selective interpretation. For the SC to rule in Texas favor, it would have to throw out and invalidate millions of legally cast votes. Straight up voter disenfranchisement. It's bad enough that the Republican party engages in voter suppression and gerrymandering, but this?...is straight up theft..and sedition.

How is making a person vote in person and prove they are eligible to vote voter surpression?

States made the election rules. There are states that have used mail in voting for years without incident. The military has used it for decades.
Voting in person (especially during a pandemic) may not be possible for everyone. Hence, a way for Republicans to practice voter suppression.
Everyone who cast a vote was eligible. 73 million of the morons voted for Trump.

Your man lost. And you're pissed. I get it. But this behavior is just un-American.

You just like mail in voting because it makes it easier to cheat, and you know your side has no issues with cheating.

Maybe you can explain how it is possible to cheat in a mail in ballot?

Do millions of soldiers and sailors cheat every year when they vote by mail?

Remember....soldiers and sailors are to be used...and if they can't be used, they are denigrated.....that's been "the way" the last four years.

scum like rightwinger are the only ones denigrating them, and Trump has prevented them from getting killed.

Nope....we have eyes to see...............and read.

 

[colfax_m]

It's a non sequitur.

A non sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

The problem here is your lack of logic.

What's the logical connection?

Extraconstitutional legislation by executives.