Senator Joe Manchin has announced that he will vote against the Democrats' bill to federalize elections. That's great, but he failed to cite the most important reason for opposing the bill. The U.S. Constitution granted state legislature the power to regulate elections, including federal elections. Grabbing that power from the states would require a Constitutional amendment. Every Senator and Representative who votes for this bill will be violating their oath of office. This is not a grey area - the Constitution is crystal clear on this issue. This is just another example of Democrats blatantly attempting to pass unconstitutional legislation for political purposes. There are way too many lawyers in Congress for Democrats not to realize that they are attempting to send an unconstitutional bill for Biden's signature.
Democrats should be thankful that Senator Manchin intends to block passage of this bill. If passed, the law would be smacked down in federal court, but that may not happen in time to avoid wrecking another election.
Quote:Manchin to vote against bill federalizing elections, dealing major blow to Democrats
Manchin revealed position in newspaper OpEd, citing partisan nature of bill.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., declared Sunday he will oppose his party’s legislation to federalize how elections are conducted, dealing a severe blow to Democratic passage in the evenly divided Senate.
The For The People Act would among other things ban voter ID requirements, mandate mail-in voting options and begin registering voters at age 16. It has faced uniform Republican opposition.
In an op-ed published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Manchin declared the bill as too partisan and divisive
He also revealed he would not support eliminating the filibuster that requires 60 votes to consider most pieces of legislation in the Senate. On that point, he is joining a second Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
“I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening blinds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For The People Act," Manchin wrote.
He added he would fight to “seek bipartisan compromise no matter how difficult and to develop the political bonds that end divisions and help unite the country we love.”
(06-06-2021, 08:12 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ]Senator Joe Manchin has announced that he will vote against the Democrats' bill to federalize elections. That's great, but he failed to cite the most important reason for opposing the bill. The U.S. Constitution granted state legislature the power to regulate elections, including federal elections. Grabbing that power from the states would require a Constitutional amendment. Every Senator and Representative who votes for this bill will be violating their oath of office. This is not a grey area - the Constitution is crystal clear on this issue. This is just another example of Democrats blatantly attempting to pass unconstitutional legislation for political purposes. There are way too many lawyers in Congress for Democrats not to realize that they are attempting to send an unconstitutional bill for Biden's signature.
Democrats should be thankful that Senator Manchin intends to block passage of this bill. If passed, the law would be smacked down in federal court, but that may not happen in time to avoid wrecking another election.
Quote:Manchin to vote against bill federalizing elections, dealing major blow to Democrats
Manchin revealed position in newspaper OpEd, citing partisan nature of bill.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., declared Sunday he will oppose his party’s legislation to federalize how elections are conducted, dealing a severe blow to Democratic passage in the evenly divided Senate.
The For The People Act would among other things ban voter ID requirements, mandate mail-in voting options and begin registering voters at age 16. It has faced uniform Republican opposition.
In an op-ed published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Manchin declared the bill as too partisan and divisive
He also revealed he would not support eliminating the filibuster that requires 60 votes to consider most pieces of legislation in the Senate. On that point, he is joining a second Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
“I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening blinds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For The People Act," Manchin wrote.
He added he would fight to “seek bipartisan compromise no matter how difficult and to develop the political bonds that end divisions and help unite the country we love.”
Quooter Joe represents a state that the Dear Leader carried by 40%. What else would you expect ?
Now as far as partisan bills not going to happen Mitch will slow walk everything wait till last minute and say I can't support it.
Time to do away with filibuster only way to get things done. They have already done it with the judges I blame that on Harry might as well let the majority rule.
Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
(06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
TRT you still support a attempted coup. Now lets talk about being in the sewer you have no legs to stand on.
Quooter pretending he is working he will get on here between 11 and 1
(06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
(06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
Quooter what time is it ?
(06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
Totally agree. He has caved in the past but he did stick in there in regard to Brett Kananaugh. If he were to point out the constitutional check put on the federal government that would be huge. Otherwise as long as Dems hold the majority the Constitution will be construed to say whatever they want it to.
(06-07-2021, 04:20 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
Totally agree. He has caved in the past but he did stick in there in regard to Brett Kananaugh. If he were to point out the constitutional check put on the federal government that would be huge. Otherwise as long as Dems hold the majority the Constitution will be construed to say whatever they want it to.
TRT let's be real Joe didn't come out for Brett till after he seen they had enough votes. Joe represents a state Trump carried by 40% he's lucky he's still in office he knows next election is going to be tough. But if thinks they are going to be bipartisan effort on anything President Biden wants it's not going to happen not with Mitch. If you couldn't get 10 GQP members to investigate a attempted coup. Well it's not going to happen. Lift the filibuster majority rules.
I'm done with Joe(Manchin) . It's time for Biden to play hardball with him. Tell Manchin you will deliver what he wants to that sh!thole state in exchange for his unwavering support on the Biden agenda. If he wants two more military bases give 'em to him; big infrastructure in his hick state, give it to him. If he doesn't get his support, tell Republican Joe that he will end his political career. Tell him you will remove military bases from WVA and close down businesses. Make Joe Manchin an enemy of his people. Primary him and fund, fund, fund his opponent. Make sure he knows you will put an end to his career in Washington. No more pussyfooting with these people. The Republicans are not down for any bipartisan legislation, only watered down sh!t that is nothing more than Republican garbage. Get Manchin alone in a room and let him know he's done if he doesn't play along.
Now, will bipartisan Biden have the balls to do this? I think probably not. But it is high time to go the hardball route. There are hardball options available. Go for it, Joe(Biden) !!!
(06-07-2021, 06:09 PM)Old School Hound Wrote: [ -> ]I'm done with Joe(Manchin) . It's time for Biden to play hardball with him. Tell Manchin you will deliver what he wants to that sh!thole state in exchange for his unwavering support on the Biden agenda. If he wants two more military bases give 'em to him; big infrastructure in his hick state, give it to him. If he doesn't get his support, tell Republican Joe that he will end his political career. Tell him you will remove military bases from WVA and close down businesses. Make Joe Manchin an enemy of his people. Primary him and fund, fund, fund his opponent. Make sure he knows you will put an end to his career in Washington. No more pussyfooting with these people. The Republicans are not down for any bipartisan legislation, only watered down sh!t that is nothing more than Republican garbage. Get Manchin alone in a room and let him know he's done if he doesn't play along.
Now, will bipartisan Biden have the balls to do this? I think probably not. But it is high time to go the hardball route. There are hardball options available. Go for it, Joe(Biden) !!!
Dang OHS pretty much every word of this post is insane. TRT and Hoot, I will open the bidding on dumb stuff in the post at 4 and hope someone raises me.
1.) "Bipartisan Biden" might be the craziest thing I've ever read on here. Unless of course he means Democrat Party and Communist Party. Really we could probably get up to 10 crazy and dumb things in this one post alone.
(06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
(06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I would put Sinema in there sometimes.
Yes, your IQ goes way up when you ignore vector. You are suddenly able to do quantum physics and work Rubik's cube and the NYT Sunday crossword simultaneously while performing brain surgery. Thanks vector!
(06-07-2021, 06:38 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:09 PM)Old School Hound Wrote: [ -> ]I'm done with Joe(Manchin) . It's time for Biden to play hardball with him. Tell Manchin you will deliver what he wants to that sh!thole state in exchange for his unwavering support on the Biden agenda. If he wants two more military bases give 'em to him; big infrastructure in his hick state, give it to him. If he doesn't get his support, tell Republican Joe that he will end his political career. Tell him you will remove military bases from WVA and close down businesses. Make Joe Manchin an enemy of his people. Primary him and fund, fund, fund his opponent. Make sure he knows you will put an end to his career in Washington. No more pussyfooting with these people. The Republicans are not down for any bipartisan legislation, only watered down sh!t that is nothing more than Republican garbage. Get Manchin alone in a room and let him know he's done if he doesn't play along.
Now, will bipartisan Biden have the balls to do this? I think probably not. But it is high time to go the hardball route. There are hardball options available. Go for it, Joe(Biden) !!!
Dang OHS pretty much every word of this post is insane. TRT and Hoot, I will open the bidding on dumb stuff in the post at 4 and hope someone raises me.
1.) "Bipartisan Biden" might be the craziest thing I've ever read on here. Unless of course he means Democrat Party and Communist Party. Really we could probably get up to 10 crazy and dumb things in this one post alone.
It would be great if Creepy Joe took OHS's advice. However, I think even Biden is too smart to play hardball with a U.S. Senator who could defect to the Republican Party, land great committee assignments from a grateful G.O.P., and cruise to reelection as Republicans retake control of the Senate in 2022. In fact, I think that Hunter Biden's coke-addled brain could figure out a better strategy for his Pop.
Creepy Joe is in no position to play hardball with his party controlling the Senate with VP Harris's vote. For a two paragraph post that is chock full of dumb advice, your bid of 4 is waaay low. I would give it at least an 8 on a scale of 10, and that is approaching vector territory.
Willie Brown, Kamala Harris's former political sugar daddy, once lost control of the California State Assembly and convinced two Republicans to defect to the Democrat Party and return him to the Speakership. All McConnell has to do is convince one Democrat to defect in a red state.
(06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
All the Constitution means to them is that after enacting an unconstitutional law, they have to have Plan B ready when the Supreme Court ultimately rules to overturn the law.
(06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?
vector#1
The contents of this message are hidden because vector#1 is on your ignore list.
Next Oldest | Next Newest
(06-07-2021, 06:09 PM)Old School Hound Wrote: [ -> ]I'm done with Joe(Manchin) . It's time for Biden to play hardball with him. Tell Manchin you will deliver what he wants to that sh!thole state in exchange for his unwavering support on the Biden agenda. If he wants two more military bases give 'em to him; big infrastructure in his hick state, give it to him. If he doesn't get his support, tell Republican Joe that he will end his political career. Tell him you will remove military bases from WVA and close down businesses. Make Joe Manchin an enemy of his people. Primary him and fund, fund, fund his opponent. Make sure he knows you will put an end to his career in Washington. No more pussyfooting with these people. The Republicans are not down for any bipartisan legislation, only watered down sh!t that is nothing more than Republican garbage. Get Manchin alone in a room and let him know he's done if he doesn't play along.
Now, will bipartisan Biden have the balls to do this? I think probably not. But it is high time to go the hardball route. There are hardball options available. Go for it, Joe(Biden) !!!
So then if I understand you correctly, for any Dem in the Congress who doesn't submit to wilful zombiedom, you would have one of the leaders of the dead-head crowd "end their career." >LOL Just goes to prove what a pack of followers you guys really are. Yeah, we can't have any free thinkers in the Democrat caucus but the folks who supported DJT are cultists.
Additionally, you slam Republicans for not being on board in spiritual bipartisanship after 4 years of 'the resistance' against the entire Republican Party and one DJT in particular? Oh the exposure of it all, I am cut to the quick!! Your post was a joke right? Your side just got through refining partisanship into its purest form ever, and you're on here talking out of your head to say Joe Biden has been in any way bipartisan since he ascended to the Oval?
And lastly, you're calling for Dems to steamroll at least two out of three coequal branches of government
and over 80 million Republican countrymen while your side still has the majority. That about right? Do you have the faintest idea what you're advocating Hound? Obama penned and phoned his way around the Congress, the resistance caused Trump to resort to the same thing and now Biden is on pace to surpass both of them put together. If Joe lapses into the predicted coma at some point down road and/or if Republicans were to win back the White House, the taxpayer will be basically stiffed for 10 Trillion dollars worth of liberal gobbledegook. And you guys are on here saying democracy is dead just because Republicans are trying to pull the brake handle a little bit on the madness? Please.
(06-07-2021, 06:57 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ]https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/eve...ourt-cant/
Even If Congress Pretends H.R. 1 Is Constitutional, The Supreme Court Can’t
Great post, jp. I was mistaken about why H.R. 1 is unconstitutional but the article you linked set me straight. It sounds like the Supreme Court might overturn the proposed law, if signed into law, by a unanimous vote, based on how the liberal members of the Court have voted on precedent setting cases.
(06-07-2021, 08:18 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:57 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ]https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/eve...ourt-cant/
Even If Congress Pretends H.R. 1 Is Constitutional, The Supreme Court Can’t
Great post, jp. I was mistaken about why H.R. 1 is unconstitutional but the article you linked set me straight. It sounds like the Supreme Court might overturn the proposed law, if signed into law, by a unanimous vote, based on how the liberal members of the Court have voted on precedent setting cases.
^^ Yeah but how long will it take the SC to act, and how much unreconcilable damage will be done while the people wait?
(06-07-2021, 08:18 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:09 PM)Old School Hound Wrote: [ -> ]I'm done with Joe(Manchin) . It's time for Biden to play hardball with him. Tell Manchin you will deliver what he wants to that sh!thole state in exchange for his unwavering support on the Biden agenda. If he wants two more military bases give 'em to him; big infrastructure in his hick state, give it to him. If he doesn't get his support, tell Republican Joe that he will end his political career. Tell him you will remove military bases from WVA and close down businesses. Make Joe Manchin an enemy of his people. Primary him and fund, fund, fund his opponent. Make sure he knows you will put an end to his career in Washington. No more pussyfooting with these people. The Republicans are not down for any bipartisan legislation, only watered down sh!t that is nothing more than Republican garbage. Get Manchin alone in a room and let him know he's done if he doesn't play along.
Now, will bipartisan Biden have the balls to do this? I think probably not. But it is high time to go the hardball route. There are hardball options available. Go for it, Joe(Biden) !!!
So then if I understand you correctly, for any Dem in the Congress who doesn't submit to wilful zombiedom, you would have one of the leaders of the dead-head crowd "end their career." >LOL Just goes to prove what a pack of followers you guys really are. Yeah, we can't have any free thinkers in the Democrat caucus but the folks who supported DJT are cultists.
Additionally, you slam Republicans for not being on board in spiritual bipartisanship after 4 years of 'the resistance' against the entire Republican Party and one DJT in particular? Oh the exposure of it all, I am cut to the quick!! Your post was a joke right? Your side just got through refining partisanship into its purest form ever, and you're on here talking out of your head to say Joe Biden has been in any way bipartisan since he ascended to the Oval?
And lastly, you're calling for Dems to steamroll at least two out of three coequal branches of government and over 80 million Republican countrymen while your side still has the majority. That about right? Do you have the faintest idea what you're advocating Hound? Obama penned and phoned his way around the Congress, the resistance caused Trump to resort to the same thing and now Biden is on pace to surpass both of them put together. If Joe lapses into the predicted coma at some point down road and/or if Republicans were to win back the White House, the taxpayer will be basically stiffed for 10 Trillion dollars worth of liberal gobbledegook. And you guys are on here saying democracy is dead just because Republicans are trying to pull the brake handle a little bit on the madness? Please.
"
and over 80 million Republican countrymen" TRT why do you keep telling lies about 80 million votes bet you heard that from Dear Leader
For the record it's 74,223,369 votes President Biden got 81,282,916
And by the way in just the last 4 years the country has been stiffed 8.3 trillion and not one job to show for it Dammmm
vector#1
The contents of this message are hidden because vector#1 is on your ignore list.
(06-07-2021, 08:23 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:18 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:57 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ]https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/eve...ourt-cant/
Even If Congress Pretends H.R. 1 Is Constitutional, The Supreme Court Can’t
Great post, jp. I was mistaken about why H.R. 1 is unconstitutional but the article you linked set me straight. It sounds like the Supreme Court might overturn the proposed law, if signed into law, by a unanimous vote, based on how the liberal members of the Court have voted on precedent setting cases.
^^ Yeah but how long will it take the SC to act, and how much unreconcilable damage will be done while the people wait?
^^That's why Democrats don't worry themselves over the constitutionality of their actions. If they time things right, they could steal another election before the Supreme Court heard a Republican lawsuit. The 2020 election showed that once the votes have been cast, Republicans cannot count on the courts to invalidate the results of a crooked election. Hopefully, enough state legislatures will be enacting true reform laws to avoid the widespread election fraud that handed Biden the presidency.
(06-07-2021, 08:34 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:23 PM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:18 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:57 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ]https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/eve...ourt-cant/
Even If Congress Pretends H.R. 1 Is Constitutional, The Supreme Court Can’t
Great post, jp. I was mistaken about why H.R. 1 is unconstitutional but the article you linked set me straight. It sounds like the Supreme Court might overturn the proposed law, if signed into law, by a unanimous vote, based on how the liberal members of the Court have voted on precedent setting cases.
^^ Yeah but how long will it take the SC to act, and how much unreconcilable damage will be done while the people wait?
^^That's why Democrats don't worry themselves over the constitutionality of their actions. If they time things right, they could steal another election before the Supreme Court heard a Republican lawsuit. The 2020 election showed that once the votes have been cast, Republicans cannot count on the courts to invalidate the results of a crooked election. Hopefully, enough state legislatures will be enacting true reform laws to avoid the widespread election fraud that handed Biden the presidency.
Quooter if your people still had their way only white land owners would be allowed to vote.
vector#1
The contents of this message are hidden because vector#1 is on your ignore list.
Next Oldest | Next Newest
vector#1
The contents of this message are hidden because vector#1 is on your ignore list.
(06-07-2021, 08:11 PM)vector#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?
I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about. That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.
(06-07-2021, 09:32 PM)The Outsider Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:11 PM)vector#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?
I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about. That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.
No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.
Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.
In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.
(06-07-2021, 09:32 PM)The Outsider Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:11 PM)vector#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 10:43 AM)TheRealThing Wrote: [ -> ]Hoot, Jet, I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.
Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.
I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?
I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about. That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.
vector did not make the point but the point isn't valid whether it was him or Cardfan. Since the Obama administration, everything that qualifies as 'moving the country forward, or
froward depending on one's point of view, seemed to wind up in the 9th Court of Appeals. The tactic as I see it, was to proactively litigate any matter of liberal interest in the friendly confines of the 9th court, to include injunctions against the former President, in order to establish precedent which would heavily influence the other districts or possibly even the SC. And the liberal media certainly used it to influence the opinions of their viewership.
But the author of vector's point addressed election law as it applies to state jurisdiction. Kentucky is not a swing state and not involved where the 2am election miracle took place. Even if it were, it would have been the 6th US Court of Appeals to have heard any challenge to any lower court finding on last minute changes to election law. That's federal court for your sake there vector Cardfan.
The Supreme Court does have jurisdiction as I understand the structure of the court in a matter such as a state changing election law after voting has started or when involving federal elections when such changes are challenged in court. The Supreme Court can choose not to hear such challenge IMHO, to their own and the people's detriment.
(06-07-2021, 09:59 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 09:32 PM)The Outsider Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 08:11 PM)vector#1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 06:43 PM)jetpilot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2021, 12:16 PM)Hoot Gibson Wrote: [ -> ]I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.
I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.
Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.
As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.
I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?
I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about. That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.
No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.
Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.
In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.
LOL, typing at the same time. ^^