Bills would curtail objections at future Jan. 6 vote counts

[floridafan]

I remember Gore doing it.....tell me about Trump

as for Biden it is true that the Chinese money he received was not campaign contributions.....
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...-and-companies

Its always Biden who you tell us has these illegal contacts with the Chinese, none of it ever proven. But it is a fact that Trump took illegal campaign contributions:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new...gn-2022-07-18/

[Poor Richard Saunders]

those not developmentally challenged may realize that if the constitution changes it will have an impact on the premise......the constitution did not in fact change between 2020 and 2022......neither did the actions that the court found unconstitutional.....

Which court found it unconstitutional? How can a court never use the word constitution but yet rule on the Constitution? That would make no sense. But then you consistently make no sense these days.

it is unconstitutional to conduct an election under rules not approved by the state legislature, which is what the WI courts found to be the fact.....that is inarguably an unconstitutional election.......

Care to provide to us where that is in the US Constitution? The court only said it didn't follow the state law. There is nothing in the US Constitution that states any and every election must be conducted only under state law.

it would NOT be unconstitutional to not count votes which were collected illegally.....in fact, it would be the logical thing to with votes collected illegally.......of course no one denied the counting of any votes so your strawman argument is in fact made out of straw.......

But the Courts have consistently said the opposite of what you claim. It would be unconstitutional to punish the voters because they followed the rules they thought were in place. You are the one using straw as you attempt to claim something is unconstitutional that has never been declared as such and there is no part of the Constitution to support your opinion.

[Joe Capitalist]

I have a Juris Doctorate and a Masters in Theology.........not going to provide the harassment hounds with any clues, thanks.......

Ok, so you've been able to dishonor both degrees in one fell swoop. You're about as 'holy' as....well as Donald Trump.

[Into the Night]

Its always Biden who you tell us has these illegal contacts with the Chinese, none of it ever proven. But it is a fact that Trump took illegal campaign contributions:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new...gn-2022-07-18/

Fiction. Fake news.

[Into the Night]

How is this a bad thing for citizens?

You have to ask?????!?

[Into the Night]

No election has taken place. Dems run the House.

And look at what the House as accomplished:

* higher taxes.
* insults of half the population.
* wasting time letting Trump live rent free in their heads.
* borrowing even more that they can't pay back.
* printing money even faster than ever before.
* pushing state religions such as the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Covid, along with all the tyranny they involve.
* are now considering price controls on gasoline, which will result in gas shortages (back to the days of Carter!).

What a list of accomplishments for the Democrats.

[Into the Night]

Which court found it unconstitutional? How can a court never use the word constitution but yet rule on the Constitution? That would make no sense. But then you consistently make no sense these days.

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Care to provide to us where that is in the US Constitution?

Article II.

The court only said it didn't follow the state law.

See Article II.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that states any and every election must be conducted only under state law.

Legislative authority. Yes there is. Article II.

But the Courts have consistently said the opposite of what you claim.

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution.

It would be unconstitutional to punish the voters because they followed the rules they thought were in place.

The only ones punishing voters are Democrats, by causing election fraud and election faults because of it.

You are the one using straw

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

as you attempt to claim something is unconstitutional that has never been declared as such

It doesn't have to be 'declared'. The Constitution, and ONLY the Constitution is the authoritative reference of the Constitution.

and there is no part of the Constitution to support your opinion.

Article II.

[PostmodernProphet]

Its always Biden who you tell us has these illegal contacts with the Chinese, none of it ever proven. But it is a fact that Trump took illegal campaign contributions:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new...gn-2022-07-18/

thanks for clearing that up....

A spokeswoman and a lawyer for Trump, who was not accused of wrongdoing, did not reply to requests for comment.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have nothing to say

it happens so often we barely even notice any more......

[PostmodernProphet]

Which court found it unconstitutional?

as you are already aware, having been provided with the link over a dozen times since January, the WI lower court who's decision was upheld by the WI SC......

Care to provide to us where that is in the US Constitution?

it is sad that you engage in this conversation but don't already know.....
https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ng%20Senators.

The court only said it didn't follow the state law. There is nothing in the US Constitution that states any and every election must be conducted only under state law.

obviously the above proves you wrong....

But the Courts have consistently said the opposite of what you claim.

no court has ever said the opposite......

[Poor Richard Saunders]

as you are already aware, having been provided with the link over a dozen times since January, the WI lower court who's decision was upheld by the WI SC......



it is sad that you engage in this conversation but don't already know.....
https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ng%20Senators.


obviously the above proves you wrong....



no court has ever said the opposite......

Yeah.. that opinion that never mentions the word "constitution" once in the ruling. It's funny how you attempt to give meaning to something that if you actually did that in a court you would be reprimanded.

You really should read the entirety of what you link to.
The term "legislature" includes any laws that give power to other entities. If they give power to an election commission then that acts as the power of the legislature. If that commission violates a law, it is not a violation of the Constitution.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah.. that opinion that never mentions the word "constitution" once in the ruling. It's funny how you attempt to give meaning to something that if you actually did that in a court you would be reprimanded.

what is really funny is that when the US constitution states that only the state legislature can set the rules for an election and the WI courts find that the WI election officials illegally used rules which had not been approved by the state legislature, that somehow it has nothing to do with what the US constitution states.......

by the way.....nobody gave the election officials in those blue voting precincts the authority to hold an unconstitutional election.....sucks to be a demmycrat....sucks to have the Pale Faced Pedophile as the first man ever put in the Oval Office by means other than a constitutional election........

[Poor Richard Saunders]

what is really funny is that when the US constitution states that only the state legislature can set the rules for an election and the WI courts find that the WI election officials illegally used rules which had not been approved by the state legislature, that somehow it has nothing to do with what the US constitution states.......

by the way.....nobody gave the election officials in those blue voting precincts the authority to hold an unconstitutional election.....sucks to be a demmycrat....sucks to have the Pale Faced Pedophile as the first man ever put in the Oval Office by means other than a constitutional election........

The Constitution also states that no one can have their rights removed without due process of law. The right to vote is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. If we accept that then the vote was Constitutional since there were no due process declaring the regulations unlawful until after the election.

[PostmodernProphet]

The Constitution also states that no one can have their rights removed without due process of law.

well there you have it then.....of course, since no one has removed anyone's voting rights without due process of law we can chalk this one up to you, pissing in the wind, with your mouth open.....meanwhile, by operation of law, the election has in fact been declared unconstitutional.......is there anything else you would like to discuss?......

[Poor Richard Saunders]

well there you have it then.....of course, since no one has removed anyone's voting rights without due process of law we can chalk this one up to you, pissing in the wind, with your mouth open.....meanwhile, by operation of law, the election has in fact been declared unconstitutional.......is there anything else you would like to discuss?......

So, you are arguing that there rights should be removed and their votes during that election taken away?