Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you care to provide proof or just insults? It is true that Trump sowed doubt into the vote before election day and that is what the Republicans knew they needed to do to try to overturn the election if they lost.
States like Pennsylvania violated their own Constitution, with Act 77, by altering election laws, when their state constitution requires an actual change to the constitution for any election law change to take place.
Again in Pennsylvania, a county boards of election changed even Act 77, by arbitrarily creating hand-delivered ballot drop-box locations. The state court also unlawfully allowed mail-in ballots to be received and counted after 8 p.m. on Election Day, extending it to Nov. 6.
And this is just a few of the unlawful changes made to state election law, by just one state, during this election.
Yup, it's not even up for argument. Our news media has done such a horrible job of informing the public on this issue. They did however do a great job of misinforming, and dumbing down the population.
The legislatures write the laws, the executive branches implement them, and the lower level courts interpret them. Nowhere was this avoided. If you and I disagree on what the law says, we get the courts to interpret the law. That's how it works.
Wrong, courts do not get to change election laws on the fly, neither do governors or state election panels. You are essentially saying that we do not need state laws or a state constitution, all we need is a state judge to rewrite state laws on the fly.
States like Pennsylvania violated their own Constitution, with Act 77, by altering election laws, when their state constitution requires an actual change to the constitution for any election law change to take place.
Again in Pennsylvania, a county boards of election changed even Act 77, by arbitrarily creating hand-delivered ballot drop-box locations. The state court also unlawfully allowed mail-in ballots to be received and counted after 8 p.m. on Election Day, extending it to Nov. 6.
And this is just a few of the unlawful changes made to state election law, by just one state, during this election.
The court decided that those situations were allowed under the law. The appeals courts ahve agreed with them. Who do you think gets to interpret the laws when two sides disagree on the what teh law says? That's right, the courts do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Wrong, courts do not get to change election laws on the fly, neither do governors or state election panels. You are essentially saying that we do not need state laws or a state constitution, all we need is a state judge to rewrite state laws on the fly.
That is exactly how it works. If the court says "Yes, that is allowable under the law", then that's the way it works under the law. You may disagree with the court's ruling, but you have no ability to change it.
Wrong, courts do not get to change election laws on the fly, neither do governors or state election panels. You are essentially saying that we do not need state laws or a state constitution, all we need is a state judge to rewrite state laws on the fly.
Courts get to say whether a given action is within the law or not. And their finding becomes law. This will always be the case under a common law system, and that is what the US has had since the US became a thing. (Except for Louisiana, who still runs a mostly Napoleonic system within the state's jurisdiction.)
The court decided that those situations were allowed under the law. The appeals courts ahve agreed with them. Who do you think gets to interpret the laws when two sides disagree on the what teh law says? That's right, the courts do.
That is exactly how it works. If the court says "Yes, that is allowable under the law", then that's the way it works under the law. You may disagree with the court's ruling, but you have no ability to change it.
The courts get to interpret Law as written, not make it.
That is the difference.
States like Pennsylvania violated their own Constitution, with Act 77, by altering election laws, when their state constitution requires an actual change to the constitution for any election law change to take place.
Again in Pennsylvania, a county boards of election changed even Act 77, by arbitrarily creating hand-delivered ballot drop-box locations. The state court also unlawfully allowed mail-in ballots to be received and counted after 8 p.m. on Election Day, extending it to Nov. 6.
And this is just a few of the unlawful changes made to state election law, by just one state, during this election.
So what? Had Trump won enough close states to win the entire election, you couldn't have cared less how any constitutional laws were violated. Right?
Awwww poor Trumpies. Are you still clinging to the delusion that he won the Presidency?
So wouldn't you, if you believed Trump was easily the best president ever since Reagan? I mean Lincoln.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
