In DC Republican Rep. Clay Higgins looking to pass a law that will remove the ectoral votes away from the Candidate who this benefits from this...
In DC Republican Rep. Clay Higgins looking to pass a law that will remov ectoral votes away from the Candidate who this benefits from this...
How would they prove that they disqualified candidate would have won? Polls are crap so you cannot use those.
In DC Republican Rep. Clay Higgins looking to pass a law that will remo
ectoral votes away from the Candidate who this benefits from this...
How would they prove that they disqualified candidate would have won? Polls are crap so you cannot use those.
Well... All the BS that's going on right now is proof enough. Joe Biden can c
e out tomorrow and call off the dogs and say... Our policies are better than T
mp's policies and we'll see him at the ballot box.
So if Trump cannot win the Primary in that state, how could they take electoral votes away should that winner go on to be the Republican candidate and then win that state? In theory, they could have benefitted from Trump's removal. Stripping them of the votes will only throw the election to a Democrat.
Mike Powell wrote to IB JOE <=-
So if Trump cannot win the Primary in that state, how could they take electoral votes away should that winner go on to be the Republican candidate and then win that state? In theory, they could have
benefitted from Trump's removal. Stripping them of the votes will only throw the election to a Democrat.
It is simple... In order for Trump to be removed because of Amendment 14 you'd
eed a few things...
1) A Federal Prosecutor
2) A Grand Jury Indictment on insurrection
3) A conviction on insurrection
4) That conviction must stand the appeals process
And then you might have a case for Amendment 14.
In the US you don't find someone guilty because your "Spidie Sense" tingle.
So if Trump cannot win the Primary in that state, how could they take electoral votes away should that winner go on to be the Republican candidate and then win that state? In theory, they could have benefitted from Trump's removal. Stripping them of the votes will only throw the election to a Democrat.
You bring up an interesting idea.
Let's assume for the moment that Colorado kept Trump off the primary ballot. But Trump still won in the primaries overall. And then Colorado decides to keep Trump off the main ballot too.
Is that legal? According to the U.S. Constitution only the Colorado Legislature can decide that.
But is it right? The ballot would not have the Republican candidate on it which would deprive people's right to choose in a FEDERAL election.
IHMO: The Electoral votes from Colorado would be void since there was, effectively, no election there for President.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
Is that legal? According to the U.S. Constitution only the Colorado Legislature can decide that.
I am not from Colorado and have not dug into their rules, but it is possible they have a law delegating this right to their SoS.
In
Kentucky, the SoS Office is responsible for the ballots, and can
interpret who is and is not eligible to be on them, but I am not sure
if the SoS can specifically remove candidates for federal office
without legislative action.
For recent examples, I know that several third party Presidential
slates only appear on ballots in some states and not all states. In
our state, I am pretty certain it is the SoS Office that decides who qualified for our ballot and who did not.
It is too bad we don't have a participant from Colorado who can share
how they feel about Trump not being on their ballot.
Is that legal? According to the U.S. Constitution only the Colorado Legislature can decide that.
But is it right? The ballot would not have the Republican candidate on it which would deprive people's right to choose in a FEDERAL election.
Is that legal? According to the U.S. Constitution only the Colorado Legislature can decide that.
I am not from Colorado and have not dug into their rules, but it is possible they have a law delegating this right to their SoS.
But they can't make such a law since it would directly violate the U.S. Constitution which says that only the legislature has that authority.
This is something I hope the SCOTUS rules on at some point:
Can the legislature cede its authority to a gov't agency when the Constitution
explicitly says that only the legislature has the authority?
This is the root of the problem with the Bureaucracy (the unconstitutional 4th
branch of gov't). The Legislature passes a law that says "This agency here ca
make the rules about this topic." Effectively the Legislature has granted law
making ability to that agency - which violates the Constitution which says tha
only the Legislature has that ability. Also, the agency is under the Executiv
branch, since Executive Orders only impact gov't agencies. That violates the Constitution separation of powers.
It's similar here in Michigan. But the state Constition says the only the Legislature can change the rules of voting. Ex: The SoS can't unilaterally sa
that voting can span a week and declare mail-in voting for everyone.
For recent examples, I know that several third party Presidential
slates only appear on ballots in some states and not all states. In
our state, I am pretty certain it is the SoS Office that decides who qualified for our ballot and who did not.
But I think it's important to note that the SoS usually doesn't get to set the
rules - just implement them. So if the rules are "You need so many signatures
to be on the ballot" and you don't get that many signatures, then the SoS says
you can't be on the ballot. But the SoS can't make new requirements to get on
the ballot.
It is too bad we don't have a participant from Colorado who can share how they feel about Trump not being on their ballot.
I don't think that any of us are Constitutional Scholars, so this is just all speculation on our part. The Elitists are trying their hardest and pulling ou
all the excuses. Sort of reminds me of playing Magic cards a long time ago.
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
But they can't make such a law since it would directly violate the U.S. Constitution which says that only the legislature has that authority.
But they can. In this case, it would be the legislature passing a law stating that, in their state, the SoS has that authority.
I don't know
about your state, but here our legislature is not in session the whole year like Congress is, so they delegate things to elected officials who
do actually work the entire year.
I think that is what is meant to happen, i.e. it is up to the state legislature to decide how they exercise that authority.
Government angencies cannot pass laws,
In the case of Kentucky, the SoS is not an appointed Bureaucrat. They
are a state constitutional officer and are elected.
Also, I am not sure we are talking about an officer making a rule.
Rather, the Legislature passed a law stating that the officer has the authority to follow a rule (i.e. a law) that they have already passed.
Instead they have laws that the SoS must follow while making such decisions.
No but I am at least familiar with how things work in my state. There
is some Elitist or, at least, good ole D boy stuff that used to go on,
and now there is starting to be some equally-stupid UMAGA stuff going
on.
But they can. In this case, it would be the legislature passing a law stating that, in their state, the SoS has that authority.
The question is that if we have a higher law that says "Only X has authority" can X cede that authority to someone else? I assert, No.
Since the U.S. Constitution is above Colorado law and the U.S. Constitution says only the state Legislatures have authority, I assert that the state Legislature cannot pass a law that the SoS has authority since thath would violate the U.S. Constitution.
I don't know
about your state, but here our legislature is not in session the whole year like Congress is, so they delegate things to elected officials who do actually work the entire year.
There's a difference between "We assign this task to you" and "We are giving you some of our authority independent of us".
Ex: Only the Legislature can make laws. Now, if the EPA wants to make up a se
or rules, they can do that, but those rules cannot have the force of law behin
them until the Legislature make those rules law. In many cases, this has not been done.
Remember "We have to pass the law to know what's in it"? The "law" passed was
effectively "We give the Bureaucracy authority to make law", which is unconstitutional.
Government angencies cannot pass laws,
But they, in effect, do. They make rules that have the force of law behind them without the Legislature approving them.
In the case of Kentucky, the SoS is not an appointed Bureaucrat. They are a state constitutional officer and are elected.
Same here in Michigan. But the SoS is part of the Executive Branch and constitutionally prohibited from making or changing law.
In our case, the state constitution clearly states that only the Legislature has authority to make voting rules. Yet the SoS changed and added voting rule
without the Legislature.
And here in Michigan, at least, the SoS, AG and Gov are all part of the same Elitist group. The Gov dictates to the SoS and the AG refuses to prosecute th
crimes.
No but I am at least familiar with how things work in my state. There is some Elitist or, at least, good ole D boy stuff that used to go on, and now there is starting to be some equally-stupid UMAGA stuff going on.
Then I suggest reading up on Saul Alinsky since the Elitists seem to be following his playbook. One of the things he espoused was to dress up as your
opponent and do bad things.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 262 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 118:34:00 |
| Calls: | 1,877 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 4,234 |
| D/L today: |
33 files (10,514K bytes) |
| Messages: | 398,646 |