TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995

philip964 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:19 pm https://news.yahoo.com/constitution-ans ... 01597.html

Constitution answer for seditious members congress.

More of that bring us back together.

So Pelosi and Biden are ineligible to serve in any National office since both are on record (along with numerous other Dems) saying that Trump is an "illegitimate President"? What about all the Dems who voted to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential election by trying to impeach Trump with no legitimate basis whatsoever? Should we declare them all ineligible to serve in Congress?

Soccerdad1995

oohrah wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:16 am Texas sued other states for how they do their internal business. If SCOTUS had allowed that it would have opened Pandora's box. Would want, say, NJ suing Texas over lack of gun control?

The difference in this case is that the actions of those other states impacted Texas residents directly by potentially changing the outcome of a federal election in an illegal manner. That is completely different than New Jersey being concerned with how Texas enforces gun laws for Texas residents, while they are in Texas.

A better example would be if Texas decided to change the election result for all U.S. House seats that were won by Democrats. Are other states impacted by the composition of the U.S. congress? Or is that none of their business?

The fact remains that this is an open dispute between the states. SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction to settle the case, and they have refused to do so. So the dispute will have to be settled outside of the judicial branch.

Soccerdad1995

So the Supreme court has refused to hear a dispute between the states regarding the legitimacy of the Presidential election. They apparently would prefer to have this remain as an open dispute with over 1/3 of the states openly disputing the validity of the electors necessary to anoint Biden as President.

Can there be a more impactful dispute between states than who should be leading the Executive branch?

I guess if a group of states decides to secede and the rest of the states say they cannot, then SCOTUS will also decide that they can't be bothered and would rather let the states just handle it themselves?

Soccerdad1995

Personally I've resigned myself to having a President Biden for the next 6 months until he can gracefully resign for "personal / health reasons". So the real question is what checks we will have to keep Kamala from destroying our rights.

The media and career employees at Federal agencies will be no help, of course. But that still leaves us with Congress, state governments, and SCOTUS. SCOTUS may only be a check if Republicans hold the senate, as Kamala will be fully willing to appoint whatever number of justices is needed to make SCOTUS a rubber stamp for her agenda. But there is also the possibility that at least one moderate Dem senator will also block such a naked power grab even if we lose both Georgia run-offs.

And of course, the more extreme she tries to be, the more she is guaranteeing that the House and Senate will be firmly in Republican hands in 2022, and that President Trump is back in the White House in 2024.

Soccerdad1995

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:51 pm
Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:08 pm This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.
Two very important points to consider and keep in mind, especially when talking about this case. The first is that no one is asking the SCOTUS to decide who is the next president. Nothing in this court case will decide that. What is being asked and the court will decide is if people other than the legislature itself may make decisions that affect the electors appointed. If the court agrees with the premise, all that will happen is the four state legislatures will have to vote on who gets appointed as electors. They may appoint the same people that are currently appointed. They may appoint a new slate dedicated to President Trump. They may pick 62 people with NO preconceived dedication to vote. If they are one of the states where the electors are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, I have no idea what will happen and the exact wording of the court decision may be critical. But SCOTUS will not determine who won the election.

Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.

I understand that SCOTUS is not being asked to directly decide who should be the next President of the United States. I didn't mean to imply that Texas was asking them to do that. I simply meant that this is an extremely significant dispute between the states because we have just over 1/3 of the states challenging the legitimacy of the process that will likely lead to Biden receiving over 270 electoral votes and becoming the next U.S. President. If Texas is saying that process was improper, I think it is an easy extension for Texas and the other states to conclude that Biden is an illegitimate President if he is actually sworn in.

My point was that it would be very, very, good for SCOTUS to weigh in on this and add another measure of legitimacy to the outcome instead of just leaving this as an open dispute between the states. It sounds like that might be a moot concern if SCOTUS is not allowed to refuse to hear the case.

Soccerdad1995

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:12 pm
srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:02 am
E10 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:34 am Takes 270 to win, not half of the electoral total certified. Take away enough the put Biden below 270 and the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a unit. Slight Republican advantage.
I guess that will be the next SCOTUS case, how to interpret this clause of the Constitution:
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;
The way I read that is that if a state does not appoint electors, then it no longer takes 270, just a majority of how many get appointed. I can agree it takes 270 of the electors appointed, if all states appoint the electors. The questions becomes what happens if a state, say Pennsylvania, gets the appointment thrown out by the court and the legislature does not make another appointment of electors.
Apparent if things get really discombobulated the US House selects the President.

This initial post on page 1 really lifted my spirits, as with Rudy being sick and Linn and Sidney getting shot down by the courts and with safe harbor passing, I was afraid it was going to end in a big nothing burger. This doesnot rely solely on fraud but constitutional law, to me it is a winner if SCOTUS takes it. I really hope Roberts doesn’t vote with the other side.

Per the Fox news article, the states in question have already "selected" their electors, and the suit is seeking to prevent those electors from voting, not prevent them from being appointed. So if "selected" in this article means "appointed" then it would still take 270 to win.

Soccerdad1995

This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.

Imagine if SCOTUS decides not to take this case, and Biden is sworn in as the U.S. President on January 20. Then further imagine that Texas and the other 17 states all refuse to acknowledge Biden as the legitimate U.S. President, citing the unresolved dispute. It's not too hard to see a path where these states refuse to enforce any Federal laws, regulatory actions, and Executive orders that are finalized under his Presidency, since these actions would be illegitimate if his Presidency was really illegitimate. It's not hard to imagine things going downhill fast at that point.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 matches

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

Re: Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights