This will go to the USSC

[jc456]

What is that supposed to mean?

Act 77 does not violate the required age set by any federal law. Are you just throwing shit at the wall? Did you even bother to read the act?

it concerns a federal election. Why did they get involved Bush Gore in Florida? Broken chads? hahahaahahhaha get out of your way would you.

 

[jc456]

And the federal law it violates?

the right to one person one vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

False.

It violates Article I, section 4 of the Constitution by having the state court, rather than the elected legislature, determine the state election laws.

....

Act 77 was passed by the state legislators, was it not? Detail how this act allows the court to decide state election laws.

 

[FA_Q2]

it concerns a federal election. Why did they get involved Bush Gore in Florida? Broken chads? hahahaahahhaha get out of your way would you.

Because it came up against the federal constitution. You do realize they ruled it was in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution because it held that the state court was using different standards for different electors.

See, it violated a clause in the US Constitution and NOT a state constitution or state law.

So, what constitutional clause or federal law does Act 77 violate?

 

[bendog]

it concerns a federal election. Why did they get involved Bush Gore in Florida? Broken chads? hahahaahahhaha get out of your way would you.

Jesus Christ.

 

[FA_Q2]

the right to one person one vote.

I notice you left out the part of act 77 that violates that law.

That might be because it does no such thing.

 

[Faun]

Aw, IslamoNazi Farouk got his ignorant ass kicked again. Facts aren't your forte' - nor is cab cleanliness.

{
Fourteen Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives sued last year, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. Eleven of those GOP lawmakers voted for Act 77 in 2019.

In its decision, the court noted that the law has expanded access to the ballot, but the majority said that any changes to mail voting laws would require a constitutional amendment.}

Pennsylvania court strikes down no-excuse mail voting law

Shortly after the court's decision, a notice of appeal was filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which leans Democratic.

www.cbsnews.com

Wow stupid fuck, so their saying that they passed ONE law, and the court MODIFIED it to change the nature? in direct violation of the state constituion, and in violation of the US Constitution.

Hey, you may be stupid and not know anything about the facts, but at least you can drive a cab...

Poor, Fruitcake.

You got caught bullshitting again. You claimed it was a Pennsylvania court, and not their state legislature, which determined that law.

It was the state legislature which determined that law. It was the courts which ruled it Constitutional; and more recently, unconstitutional.

And those two-faced Republicans let the law sit as passed until after Trump lost their state. Only then did they challenge a law they themselves passed.

 

[jc456]

I notice you left out the part of act 77 that violates that law.

That might be because it does no such thing.

And I'm still waiting for what federal law Bush Gore violated? you want but yet can't provide. hmmmmmm

 

[Faun]

And I'm still waiting for what federal law Bush Gore violated? you want but yet can't provide. hmmmmmm

FA_Q2 already answered that...

Equal protection.

 

[FA_Q2]

And I'm still waiting for what federal law Bush Gore violated? you want but yet can't provide. hmmmmmm

I did tell you. The equal protection clause. Were you not reading? The court was trying to use different standards for different electors. That violates the equal application of laws.

Do you really need the text? Are you unaware of where the equal protection clause is? Wow.

14th amendment, section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There, it should be hard to miss. The court wanted to apply one standard in one county and another standard in other counties meaning people were NOT being treated equally under the law - a clear violation of that clause.

Now, where does Act 77 violate a federal law or the US constitution?

 

[BlindBoo]

It violates Article I, section 4 of the Constitution by having the state court, rather than the elected legislature, determine the state election laws.

"One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. "

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[jc456]

I did tell you. The equal protection clause. Were you not reading? The court was trying to use different standards for different electors. That violates the equal application of laws.

why isn't that the same as your ask?

 

[bendog]

And I'm still waiting for what federal law Bush Gore violated? you want but yet can't provide. hmmmmmm

If you read the decision by O'Connor, it had to do with equal protection and voting in different districts ... but really, the Sup Ct said "no" to further recounts. Imo it was a bad decision, and they should have left it up to Fla .... but there would ultimately have been a set of electors selected by the Fla legislature .. which was what Trump sort of wanted. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

why isn't that the same as your ask?

Why is act 77 not a violation of the equal protection clause?

Seriously?

How about you point out where it uses different standards for different people? Now you have resorted to asking me to show how it is not a violation of federal law.

Try again, WHAT FEDERAL LAW OR CONSTITUTINAL CLAUSE DOES ACT 77 VIOLATE? Actually point out where it violates said clause rather than just blankly stating random clauses.

It seems you have no idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you read the decision by O'Connor, it had to do with equal protection and voting in different districts ... but really, the Sup Ct said "no" to further recounts. Imo it was a bad decision, and they should have left it up to Fla .... but there would ultimately have been a set of electors selected by the Fla legislature .. which was what Trump sort of wanted. LOL

Why should a state have the power to treat electors differently under the law?

Why should that right, the right to be treated equally under the law, not apply to state law?

 

[jc456]

y O'Connor, it had to do with equal protection and voting in different districts

how does that differ from the OP?

 

[jc456]

Why is act 77 not a violation of the equal protection clause?

Seriously?

How about you point out where it uses different standards for different people? Now you have resorted to asking me to show how it is not a violation of federal law.

Try again, WHAT FEDERAL LAW OR CONSTITUTINAL CLAUSE DOES ACT 77 VIOLATE? Actually point out where it violates said clause rather than just blankly stating random clauses.

It seems you have no idea.

mail in voting vs in person voting to verify the individual. seems rather simple. controlled vs uncontrolled.

 

[FA_Q2]

mail in voting vs in person voting to verify the individual. seems rather simple. controlled vs uncontrolled.

It would be simple if you bothered to CITE A FERDERAL OR CONSTITUTINAL CLAUSE.

Which you still have not done.

 

[jc456]

It would be simple if you bothered to CITE A FERDERAL OR CONSTITUTINAL CLAUSE.

Which you still have not done.

I asked you what the difference was from bush gore.

 

[bendog]

how does that differ from the OP?

Don't ask me to defend the decision in BvG. But O'Connor noted that different counties and different error rates in counting votes because of different voting methods. The PA law allows equal mail in voting state wide, I think.

There's nothing unconst in the PA law. Nor is there in the GA law. jmo