PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I have made no errors, unless you count wasting my time trying to teach you something...
The Kraken is here
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
I have made no errors, unless you count wasting my time trying to teach you something...
SuperStringTheory
Verified User
I have not backtracked at all. The feds have no jurisdiction in this case, not simply because it was filed in state court but because it does not raise a question concerning federal law/Constitution.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that is a decision for the SC, not for a simple minded JPP lib'rul......
Congress could select the president in a disputed election
November 5, 2020 4.00pm EST
President Donald Trump’s campaign is challenging results of battleground states with lawsuits, hoping to litigate its way to a win in the 2020 election. But the Founding Fathers meant for Congress – not the courts – to be the backup plan if the Electoral College result was disputed or did not produce a winner.
Generally, the framers sought to avoid congressional involvement in presidential elections. As I’ve taught for two decades in my college course on presidential selection, they wanted an independent executive who could resist ill-considered legislation and would not care about currying favor with members of Congress.
That’s why they created the Electoral College, assigning to state legislatures the responsibility for choosing “electors” who would then determine the president.
But the framers could foresee circumstances – namely, a fragmented race between little-known politicians – where no presidential candidate would secure an Electoral College majority. Reluctantly, they assigned the House of Representatives the responsibility to step in if that happened – presumably because as the institution closest to the people, it could bestow some democratic legitimacy on a contingent election.
Tied or contested election
The founders proved prescient: The elections of 1800 and 1824 did not produce winners in the Electoral College and were decided by the House. Thomas Jefferson was chosen in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824.
Over time, the development of a two-party system with national nominating conventions – which allows parties to broker coalitions and unite behind a single presidential candidate – has basically ensured that the Electoral College produces a winner. Though the Electoral College has changed significantly since the 18th century, it has mostly kept Congress out of presidential selection.
A tie in the Electoral College is one way the 2020 election could end up with Congress. In the extremely unlikely scenario that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump get 269 electors, the election would be thrown into the House.
A more likely scenario is that the Trump campaign’s litigation winds up getting Congress involved in the 2020 election.
Though courts will decide specific questions of legal interpretation in voting disputes, they do not want to be perceived as deciding the 2020 election result, as the Supreme Court did in 2000. Where possible, judges will decline to hear lawsuits that ask big political questions and leave these issues for the political system to resolve.
Enter Congress. If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election.
Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here’s why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote.
That voting procedure gives equal representation to California – population 40 million – and Wyoming, population 600,000.
This arrangement favors Republicans. The GOP has dominated the House delegations of 26 states since 2018 – exactly the number required to reach a majority under the rules of House presidential selection. But it’s not the current House that would decide a contested 2020 election; it is the newly elected House, and many Nov. 3 congressional races remain undecided. So far, though, Republicans have retained control of the 26 congressional delegations they currently hold, and Democrats have lost control of two states, Minnesota and Iowa.
Evenly divided delegations count as abstentions, and Republican gains in Minnesota and Iowa are moving these states from Democratic to abstentions.
Congressional commission
Perhaps the most relevant precedent for a contested 2020 election that winds up in the House is the 1876 election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. That election saw disputed returns in four states – Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Oregon – with a total of 20 electoral votes.
Excluding those 20 disputed electors, Tilden had 184 pledged electors of the 185 needed for victory in the Electoral College; Hayes had 165. Tilden was clearly the front-runner – but Hayes would win if all the contested votes went for him.
Because of a post-Civil War rule allowing Congress – read, Northern Republicans worried about Black voter suppression – to dispute the vote count in Southern states and bypass local courts, Congress established a commission to resolve the disputed 1876 returns.
As Michael Holt writes in his examination of the 1876 election, the 15-member commission had five House representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. Fourteen of the commissioners had identifiable partisan leanings: seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The 15th member was a justice known for his impartiality.
Hope of a nonpartisan outcome was dashed when the one impartial commissioner resigned and was replaced by a Republican judge. The commission voted along party lines to give all 20 disputed electors to Hayes.
To prevent the Democratic-dominated Senate from derailing Hayes’ single-vote triumph over Tilden by refusing to confirm its decision, Republicans were forced to make a deal: Abandon Reconstruction, their policy of Black political and economic inclusion in the post-Civil War South. This paved the way for Jim Crow segregation.
Bush v. Gore
The 2000 election is the only modern precedent for contested vote returns.
George W. Bush and Al Gore argued for a month over Bush’s slim, 327-vote advantage in Florida’s second machine recount. After a lawsuit in state courts, this political and legal battle was decided by the Supreme Court in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore.
But Bush v. Gore was never intended to set a precedent. In it, the justices explicitly stated “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” Indeed, the court could have concluded that the issues presented were political, not legal, and declined to hear the case.
In that case, the House would have decided the 2000 election. The Electoral College must cast its ballots on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14. If disputed state vote totals are not resolved by six days prior to that date, Congress can step in, under the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
This could have happened in 2000, and it is imaginable this year.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Oct. 9, 2020.
https://theconversation.com/congress-could-select-the-president-in-a-disputed-election-149580
November 5, 2020 4.00pm EST
President Donald Trump’s campaign is challenging results of battleground states with lawsuits, hoping to litigate its way to a win in the 2020 election. But the Founding Fathers meant for Congress – not the courts – to be the backup plan if the Electoral College result was disputed or did not produce a winner.
Generally, the framers sought to avoid congressional involvement in presidential elections. As I’ve taught for two decades in my college course on presidential selection, they wanted an independent executive who could resist ill-considered legislation and would not care about currying favor with members of Congress.
That’s why they created the Electoral College, assigning to state legislatures the responsibility for choosing “electors” who would then determine the president.
But the framers could foresee circumstances – namely, a fragmented race between little-known politicians – where no presidential candidate would secure an Electoral College majority. Reluctantly, they assigned the House of Representatives the responsibility to step in if that happened – presumably because as the institution closest to the people, it could bestow some democratic legitimacy on a contingent election.
Tied or contested election
The founders proved prescient: The elections of 1800 and 1824 did not produce winners in the Electoral College and were decided by the House. Thomas Jefferson was chosen in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824.
Over time, the development of a two-party system with national nominating conventions – which allows parties to broker coalitions and unite behind a single presidential candidate – has basically ensured that the Electoral College produces a winner. Though the Electoral College has changed significantly since the 18th century, it has mostly kept Congress out of presidential selection.
A tie in the Electoral College is one way the 2020 election could end up with Congress. In the extremely unlikely scenario that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump get 269 electors, the election would be thrown into the House.
A more likely scenario is that the Trump campaign’s litigation winds up getting Congress involved in the 2020 election.
Though courts will decide specific questions of legal interpretation in voting disputes, they do not want to be perceived as deciding the 2020 election result, as the Supreme Court did in 2000. Where possible, judges will decline to hear lawsuits that ask big political questions and leave these issues for the political system to resolve.
Enter Congress. If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election.
Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here’s why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote.
That voting procedure gives equal representation to California – population 40 million – and Wyoming, population 600,000.
This arrangement favors Republicans. The GOP has dominated the House delegations of 26 states since 2018 – exactly the number required to reach a majority under the rules of House presidential selection. But it’s not the current House that would decide a contested 2020 election; it is the newly elected House, and many Nov. 3 congressional races remain undecided. So far, though, Republicans have retained control of the 26 congressional delegations they currently hold, and Democrats have lost control of two states, Minnesota and Iowa.
Evenly divided delegations count as abstentions, and Republican gains in Minnesota and Iowa are moving these states from Democratic to abstentions.
Congressional commission
Perhaps the most relevant precedent for a contested 2020 election that winds up in the House is the 1876 election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. That election saw disputed returns in four states – Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana and Oregon – with a total of 20 electoral votes.
Excluding those 20 disputed electors, Tilden had 184 pledged electors of the 185 needed for victory in the Electoral College; Hayes had 165. Tilden was clearly the front-runner – but Hayes would win if all the contested votes went for him.
Because of a post-Civil War rule allowing Congress – read, Northern Republicans worried about Black voter suppression – to dispute the vote count in Southern states and bypass local courts, Congress established a commission to resolve the disputed 1876 returns.
As Michael Holt writes in his examination of the 1876 election, the 15-member commission had five House representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. Fourteen of the commissioners had identifiable partisan leanings: seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The 15th member was a justice known for his impartiality.
Hope of a nonpartisan outcome was dashed when the one impartial commissioner resigned and was replaced by a Republican judge. The commission voted along party lines to give all 20 disputed electors to Hayes.
To prevent the Democratic-dominated Senate from derailing Hayes’ single-vote triumph over Tilden by refusing to confirm its decision, Republicans were forced to make a deal: Abandon Reconstruction, their policy of Black political and economic inclusion in the post-Civil War South. This paved the way for Jim Crow segregation.
Bush v. Gore
The 2000 election is the only modern precedent for contested vote returns.
George W. Bush and Al Gore argued for a month over Bush’s slim, 327-vote advantage in Florida’s second machine recount. After a lawsuit in state courts, this political and legal battle was decided by the Supreme Court in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore.
But Bush v. Gore was never intended to set a precedent. In it, the justices explicitly stated “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” Indeed, the court could have concluded that the issues presented were political, not legal, and declined to hear the case.
In that case, the House would have decided the 2000 election. The Electoral College must cast its ballots on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14. If disputed state vote totals are not resolved by six days prior to that date, Congress can step in, under the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
This could have happened in 2000, and it is imaginable this year.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Oct. 9, 2020.
https://theconversation.com/congress-could-select-the-president-in-a-disputed-election-149580
The lawyer/dentist/real estate agent. Wasn't she a hoot? Rudy makes her look like Clarence Darrow.
No. It's for the plaintiff to make the claim when seeking relief. They have not done so. They tried to have the election in Pennsylvania overturned by Federal Courts. They failed three times I believe. Then they tried the state court when that didn't work. Now they are out of options. The decision in question will not be appealed. A sixth grader taking a law class would know that. Cracker Jack U is not a law school. Sorry.
At this point the loser is just trying to save face. He thought he would sound VERY IMPORTANT when he said that the decision would be appealed to a Federal Appeals court. He got busted and can't admit he's wrong. Typical Trumptard. It makes his claim of being a JD laughable.
On what basis would the Supreme Court take ANY case right now?
Serious question. I'm checking to see if you know.
SuperStringTheory
Verified User
The allegation has to be raised by the plaintiff in the suit. They did not allege a violation of the federal constitution. The supreme court, no court, just goes looking for violations of the constitution or law.
There is no way you are qualified to practice law. You don't know the first thing about the subject.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol....the armchair lawyers are out in full force tonight......when you get your JD, give it another try....
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
SuperStringTheory
Verified User
And when you finish your remedial civics class at the center let us know.
FBI Requests Voter Integrity Project Data on Absentee Ballots for Investigation
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has requested the Voter Integrity Project’s (VIP) findings indicating illegal ballots in Georgia and other contested states. VIP was started by Matt Braynard immediately following this most recent general election. VIP has claimed to discover significant evidence of voter fraud that would impact the election’s outcome.
Braynard is the Executive Director of Look Ahead America, a voting registration and informational nonprofit, and former Data Chief and Strategist for Trump for President.
According to former Kansas Attorney General and Thomas More Society Director Phillip Kline, a special agent from the Los Angeles Field Office reached out to Braynard regarding VIP’s data.
In Georgia, VIP discovered that many apartment addresses for those who voted absentee were actually postal facilities. According to the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), individuals are prohibited from registering and requesting absentee ballots using a postal facility as a residential address.
Additionally, VIP discovered at least one thousand votes that were attached to “non-residential, purely commercial addresses.”
More Georgia residency analyses within VIP research uncovered nearly 16,000 voters that had filed a change of address to another state, with nearly 5,000 having issued a subsequent voter registration in another state.
Braynard’s team also investigated the infrequent voters in precincts with high turnouts. In Georgia, about one percent of respondents stated that they hadn’t casted a ballot, though the state reported they did.
Over 44 percent of nearly 260 respondents shared that they had returned their absentee ballot – yet the state recorded that they didn’t. Of the total amount of absentee ballots that were issued, nearly 140,000 were unreturned.
As for dead voters, Braynard shared that VIP hadn’t found some evidence, but not any correlation of a “targeted effort to cast the ballots of deceased voters.”
Additionally, legal teams have requested for Braynard to submit his work to their cases in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
A full analysis of VIP’s findings and conclusions in Georgia and the other contested states was published in a video.
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/11/3...t-data-on-absentee-ballots-for-investigation/
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has requested the Voter Integrity Project’s (VIP) findings indicating illegal ballots in Georgia and other contested states. VIP was started by Matt Braynard immediately following this most recent general election. VIP has claimed to discover significant evidence of voter fraud that would impact the election’s outcome.
Braynard is the Executive Director of Look Ahead America, a voting registration and informational nonprofit, and former Data Chief and Strategist for Trump for President.
According to former Kansas Attorney General and Thomas More Society Director Phillip Kline, a special agent from the Los Angeles Field Office reached out to Braynard regarding VIP’s data.
In Georgia, VIP discovered that many apartment addresses for those who voted absentee were actually postal facilities. According to the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), individuals are prohibited from registering and requesting absentee ballots using a postal facility as a residential address.
Additionally, VIP discovered at least one thousand votes that were attached to “non-residential, purely commercial addresses.”
More Georgia residency analyses within VIP research uncovered nearly 16,000 voters that had filed a change of address to another state, with nearly 5,000 having issued a subsequent voter registration in another state.
Braynard’s team also investigated the infrequent voters in precincts with high turnouts. In Georgia, about one percent of respondents stated that they hadn’t casted a ballot, though the state reported they did.
Over 44 percent of nearly 260 respondents shared that they had returned their absentee ballot – yet the state recorded that they didn’t. Of the total amount of absentee ballots that were issued, nearly 140,000 were unreturned.
As for dead voters, Braynard shared that VIP hadn’t found some evidence, but not any correlation of a “targeted effort to cast the ballots of deceased voters.”
Additionally, legal teams have requested for Braynard to submit his work to their cases in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
A full analysis of VIP’s findings and conclusions in Georgia and the other contested states was published in a video.
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/11/3...t-data-on-absentee-ballots-for-investigation/
Michigan county flips back to Trump following election software update
Reliably GOP county had originally swung to Biden.
Election software in Michigan's Antrim County that had incorrectly directed Democratic votes to presidential candidate Joe Biden was updated Friday, putting thousands of votes correctly into President Trump's totals.
The software had reportedly caused a significant number of votes to be allotted to Biden in a county that has for years been reliably red. In the presumed final count, Biden had originally led in the county by roughly 3,000 votes. Revised totals show that Trump won the county by around 2,500.
The error came after an election staffer failed to update the software to adjust for changes in a local ballot, state officials said following the incident.
Addressing the mishap, Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox said Friday during a press conference that "47 counties [in Michigan] use this same software in the same capacity."
"These counties that use this software need to closely examine their results for similar discrepancies," she said.
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...nical-glitch-michigan-county-flips-back-trump
Reliably GOP county had originally swung to Biden.
Election software in Michigan's Antrim County that had incorrectly directed Democratic votes to presidential candidate Joe Biden was updated Friday, putting thousands of votes correctly into President Trump's totals.
The software had reportedly caused a significant number of votes to be allotted to Biden in a county that has for years been reliably red. In the presumed final count, Biden had originally led in the county by roughly 3,000 votes. Revised totals show that Trump won the county by around 2,500.
The error came after an election staffer failed to update the software to adjust for changes in a local ballot, state officials said following the incident.
Addressing the mishap, Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox said Friday during a press conference that "47 counties [in Michigan] use this same software in the same capacity."
"These counties that use this software need to closely examine their results for similar discrepancies," she said.
https://justthenews.com/politics-po...nical-glitch-michigan-county-flips-back-trump
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Good thing you never took me up on any bets.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...161756-3338-11eb-b59c-adb7153d10c2_story.html
Wisconsin and Arizona make it official as Trump fails to stop vote certification in all six states where he contested his defeat
...Three other states where the Trump campaign and its allies have tried to overturn the results — Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania — have also certified their results....
...Their actions brought Biden one step closer to an official victory on Dec. 14, when the electoral college meets.
While Trump has kept up a stream of baseless claims that the election was corrupted by fraud, a growing number of state officials on both sides of the aisle pushed back against that notion.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
SuperStringTheory
Verified User
You are just spewing a bunch of false information and lies.
https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-544676--,00.html
Right back at you son. Difference being I don't claim to have one.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it is good that you also made no claim to sentience......