fake news by russia effected the election

[Legion]

then fuck off

Prove your claim, racist.

because it has yet to be investigated

LINK

[Legion]

the republican party is still under a court ordered consent decree to keep them from purging without being supervised while they do it to make sure they don't cheat voters again for 40 years now

Is that so, racist?

LINK

[Flash]

You mean federalist No. 10 where Madison is explaining why Article 4 Section 4, clause 1 exists in the US CONSTITUTION that guarantees a Republican Government at all levels, while he is explaining why the Constitution was based upon Republicanism instead of social democracy...i.e., mob rule which is incompatible with personal freedoms, liberty, and the right to own property? That Federalist No. 10?

Conclusion: The tyrants mentioned had nothing to do with denying the majority anything.....it had to do with denying any type of MOB the legal process to deny the guaranteed rights of a Republican Government as compared to a pure democracy which have always historically failed. There is no tyranny of the majority mentioned anywhere in the US CONSTITUTION and following STATES BILL OF RIGHTS and AMENDMENTS. Madison would be the first to jump from his grave and beat you over the head with that truth if he had but witnessed how the US has became corrupted by such idiocy in suggesting that the US is a democracy.

I mean the Federalist #10 that answers the question what is the best type of government to control factions. He chooses a republic instead of a democracy because in a democracy the majority always wins and imposes its view on others. A majority faction is as evil as any lesser faction. He even argues that our elected representatives should base their decisions on the best interests of the nation and not the wishes of constituents because that is just another form of majority rule.

The MOB you mention is the majority.

I haven't read it lately but I do not remember any discussion of Article IV. Perhaps you could copy and paste a few sentences.

[evince]

https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-...consent-decree


DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016






In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)

[Nordberg]

In Michigan, we had a ballot proposal that would eliminate the Emergency Managers. It carried, ending them. Within a month, the Repubs reinstated them and had a provision so it was not allowed on the ballot again. That is how much the Repubs care about the vote and the will of the people. That is the Repub attitude.