And if Dad doesn't do anything about it when you do drive through town at 100? He might not have ordered it, but he's OK with it. That is what has happened here. While some legislators have asked for judicial intervention, legislatures have not, nor have legislatures used the independent power they do have to impeach wayward AGs or judges or to cut their budgets or to sever court jurisdiction.
We on this board are certainly not OK with what has happened in several states regarding voting and vote-counting laws and procedures. But those Constitutionally-empowered legislatures allowed it to happen. The remedy is for state legislatures to pass far more stringent laws with serious criminal penalties for local officials who flout those laws and then to de-fund and impeach other state authorities who act contrary to those laws. If a legislature will not guard its own power and authority then there's no reason for courts to do so.
And if the voters will not insist on having their own authority asserted by their directly-elected representatives - if the voters will not replace legislators who remain passive - then maybe the country at large is OK with corrupt elections as well.
Clinton raped women. Because the legislature did not pass a law making it specifically illegal for Clinton himself to rape women, the law thus allowed those women to be raped by Clinton.
Somehow, your argument fails to make any sense.
The Constitution states the LEGISLATURES will be the sole arbiter of what is used to select electors.
When other parties, non-legislative parties, act to impose rules different than those determined by the legislature, in what way is the legislature "allowing" those non-legislative parties to impose anti-Constitutional rules on the electors selection process?
Silence is not tacit consent. According to many states' rape laws, while "no" still means "no", not saying "yes" is no longer a silent assumption of consent. The non-legislative parties raping the states' election laws were required both to ask for permission to insert the organ into the delicate election orifice, but to withhold said insertion until a lawfully legislated "yes" came back from the legislature. The entire nation was raped by the Rodent's presumption that Epstein Island/Harvey Weinstein Rules worked in America.
They don't. That only gets swallowed by people in Hollywood who like that kind of thing.
In other words, why is it that Rodents feel it's okay to break a law if another law isn't passed saying it's not okay to break the first law? That's what you just said, that it was okay to break the law because people didn't bother to say the law shouldn't be broken.
It's like putting a lock on a barn door then having to explain to the judge that you didn't give your cow to that Democrat because you didn't also chain the cow inside the barn to the stanchions. And if the cow was chained, you also didn't hobble the cow and then bolt the hobbles to the barn floor and somehow anchor the barn to the ground.
The fact that you had title to the cow should have been enough indication that you didn't want the cow stolen.
Rodents are too evil to be allowed to remain in America.