Why Are Democrats So Afraid of Election Audits? By Charlie Kirk

[Hoodat]

It's abundantly clear that Pennsylvania, Georgia, and several other states violated the United States Constitution WRT presidential elections in 2020 and thus far NO court has been willing to even look at the evidence.

@Bigun

Presidents are elected by the States, which means that Texas absolutely positively did have standing in contesting the Constitutional violations of other States.  Each State agreed through their legislature to adopt the US Constitution as the foundation of all law, and by doing so placed the power to enact election laws exclusively in the hands of their prospective legislatures.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the right of any individual to vote for President.  That right is established within each State solely by its legislature.  Think of what would happen if a governor came along, cancelled an election, and unilaterally chose his/her own slate of electors to cast that State's votes in the electoral college.  Do you think  the Supreme Court would be willing to hear that case?  Would Texas have standing then?  Well what happened last November is essentially no different from that.  Here in Georgia, the Executive branch overrode the laws enacted by the State legislature and put their own rules in place that would essentially guarantee their preferred slate of electors would get chosen.

[roamer_1]

Do you think  the Supreme Court would be willing to hear that case?  Would Texas have standing then? 

No.

[Hoodat]

No.

Then that needs to be our new strategy.  Kidnap the families of the New York, Illinois, and California governors and demand they send the Republican slate of electors to the electoral college, thus guaranteeing the election of a Republican President.  And when Minnesota or Vermont or Oregon sues, the Supreme Court can say "Sorry, we can't help.  Those CA/NY/IL electors count".

[Cyber Liberty]

Then that needs to be our new strategy.  Kidnap the families of the New York, Illinois, and California governors and demand they send the Republican slate of electors to the electoral college, thus guaranteeing the election of a Republican President.  And when Minnesota or Vermont or Oregon sues, the Supreme Court can say "Sorry, we can't help.  Those CA/NY/IL electors count".

 

Trying to find a flaw in your plan, and failing.   

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

I'm stealing that.  Thanks.  Top notch.

@Hoodat

Thanks!

[sneakypete]

Trying to find a flaw in your plan, and failing.   

@Cyber Liberty 

You then have to waste valuable resources to feed,house,and clothe them.

Now,if you are talking about chaining and staking them out in the yard with a big "dog house" structure for them to get in out of the sun and rain in and feed then cheap dog food,I can go along with that.

[roamer_1]

Then that needs to be our new strategy.  Kidnap the families of the New York, Illinois, and California governors and demand they send the Republican slate of electors to the electoral college, thus guaranteeing the election of a Republican President.  And when Minnesota or Vermont or Oregon sues, the Supreme Court can say "Sorry, we can't help.  Those CA/NY/IL electors count".

Now you're thinking like a Democrat. 

[Bigun]

@Bigun

Presidents are elected by the States, which means that Texas absolutely positively did have standing in contesting the Constitutional violations of other States.  Each State agreed through their legislature to adopt the US Constitution as the foundation of all law, and by doing so placed the power to enact election laws exclusively in the hands of their prospective legislatures.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the right of any individual to vote for President.  That right is established within each State solely by its legislature.  Think of what would happen if a governor came along, cancelled an election, and unilaterally chose his/her own slate of electors to cast that State's votes in the electoral college.  Do you think  the Supreme Court would be willing to hear that case?  Would Texas have standing then?  Well what happened last November is essentially no different from that.  Here in Georgia, the Executive branch overrode the laws enacted by the State legislature and put their own rules in place that would essentially guarantee their preferred slate of electors would get chosen.

If any party to a contract does not have the ability to sue the other parties subject to that contract for their violations the contract is null and void.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Audits make libs feel bad.  Audits inevitably lead to non-compliance shaming.

[BassWrangler]

Audits make libs feel bad.  Audits inevitably lead to non-compliance shaming.

BassWrangler feel good when libs feel bad.

[Hoodat]

If any party to a contract does not have the ability to sue the other parties subject to that contract for their violations the contract is null and void.

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen of Texas from suing GA, PA, etc.  But the Texas suit was brought by the State itself, not a citizen of that State.  Thus, Article III, Section 2 is in full effect:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
--to Controversies between two or more States;  .  .  .

[Hoodat]

Now you're thinking like a Democrat. 

And the purpose of our Constitution was to protect the people from this type of tyranny - a Constitution which each Supreme Court Justice took an oath to uphold and defend.  Do you really believe they have no judiciary obligation to prevent such tyranny especially considering is a an overt violation of Article II, Sec 1.

[Sled Dog]

@Bigun

Presidents are elected by the States, which means that Texas absolutely positively did have standing in contesting the Constitutional violations of other States.  Each State agreed through their legislature to adopt the US Constitution as the foundation of all law, and by doing so placed the power to enact election laws exclusively in the hands of their prospective legislatures.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the right of any individual to vote for President.  That right is established within each State solely by its legislature.  Think of what would happen if a governor came along, cancelled an election, and unilaterally chose his/her own slate of electors to cast that State's votes in the electoral college.  Do you think  the Supreme Court would be willing to hear that case?  Would Texas have standing then?  Well what happened last November is essentially no different from that.  Here in Georgia, the Executive branch overrode the laws enacted by the State legislature and put their own rules in place that would essentially guarantee their preferred slate of electors would get chosen.

Today's courts would refuse the case if the slate of false electors voted for the Rodent.

Today's courts would be all over this rejecting those electors if they supported an American instead.

Of course, no American electors would participate in such blatant fraud, so the courts, which had five or six such cases brought before them in 2020, ignored them because the Party of Treason and the Most Massive Voter Fraud Operation In History installed those false electors.

[Sled Dog]

@Cyber Liberty 

You then have to waste valuable resources to feed,house,and clothe them.

Now,if you are talking about chaining and staking them out in the yard with a big "dog house" structure for them to get in out of the sun and rain in and feed then cheap dog food,I can go along with that.

Feed them Moochelle Obama's School Lunch.  Take it from the school garbage pails.

They don't need clothing.

Chain them to trees, don't need special housing.

[Sled Dog]

I get it just fine. I said from the get-go, the tough part would be proving it... And I was damn well right.

It was proven.

Nothing hard about that.

It was proven that the Rapist's Harridan did indeed have those emails on her hard drive.    The Espionage Act does not require wilfull knowledge that the action was illegal.

It was also proven that there were insufficient true electors in the 2020 election to seat that Biden bimbo.

[Sled Dog]

Nowhere - They don't have standing... Or Californica gets to impose itself on Montana and tell us how to run our elections... NOPE. If the state legislature is the sole authority, Texas, twenty other states, and the court itself cannot BE authorities.

The State of Texas does not have STANDING when six other states all violate the Constitutional election requirements and thereby install a usurper into the White House?

Really?    The Americans are just supposed to say "oh, that happened in Pennsylvania, and they can break the laws and install the president they want and I don't have any standing because the president lawfully elected by my votes lost an illegal COUP"? 

You clearly don't understand the concept of standing, or you just really like the lie the courts put out on the matter.

[DefiantMassRINO]

In the past, wasn't "to Controversies between two or more States" applied to issues of interstate commerce, state boundaries, or state law and tax enforcement disputes?

Is Massachusetts supposed to sue every state that votes for a Republican Presidential candidate in every future election?

[Sled Dog]

Congratulations, you just made the case for dismissal of any and all suits due to lack of Standing.

No, I did not.

I just said that the Constitution provides only two forms of resolution to the theft of the presidency by false electors.

Return to the ballot box in the next election and gain a majority in the Congress to impeach the bastards.

Understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

What I also said was that the courts had the responsibility to act, in a timely manner, to lawsuits regarding the gross violations of the Constitution by several states when the states with standing filed lawsuits.

A lawsuit brought by Texas NOW is meaningless.

The lawsuit brought by Texas THEN was the most important and most pressing case to come before the Court in 2020.

[Sled Dog]

In the past, wasn't "to Controversies between two or more States" applied to issues of interstate commerce, state boundaries, or state law and tax enforcement disputes?

Is Massachusetts supposed to sue every state that votes for a Republican Presidential candidate in every future election?

They can if they want.

If those states also violated the Constitution, like the Rodent states did in 2020, they'd have a case.

But, since EVERY Republican president in the last 160 years won their election despite all the efforts of the Rodents to cheat, and since NO Rodent has won the White House since the 1960's without the assistance of some chicanery, why would it be necessary for a Rodent state to sue, when they are always the guilty party?

[roamer_1]

And the purpose of our Constitution was to protect the people from this type of tyranny - a Constitution which each Supreme Court Justice took an oath to uphold and defend.  Do you really believe they have no judiciary obligation to prevent such tyranny especially considering is a an overt violation of Article II, Sec 1.

Again. I don't think it is - That is WHY only the legislature of the state has standing. IN FACT your example is prevented BECAUSE only the legislature has standing. At least it is prevented if the legislators are jealous of their power. That is what is broken here, not the SCOTUS.

I am looking at the precedent that would be set by the SCOTUS ruling y'all want, and how the Liberals would use it. That is more important than whatever succor you think there is that might be gained.

It is an internal state matter specifically laid in the hands of the legislature, and it ain't nobody else's business. That is on purpose and prevents meddling from outside of the state. I like it that way.

[roamer_1]

The State of Texas does not have STANDING when six other states all violate the Constitutional election requirements and thereby install a usurper into the White House?

Really?    The Americans are just supposed to say "oh, that happened in Pennsylvania, and they can break the laws and install the president they want and I don't have any standing because the president lawfully elected by my votes lost an illegal COUP"? 

You clearly don't understand the concept of standing, or you just really like the lie the courts put out on the matter.

No, it is the other way around- I don't think you are cognizant of the precedent you are willing to set, and how that will be bastardized in the future.

[Bigun]

No, it is the other way around- I don't think you are cognizant of the precedent you are willing to set, and how that will be bastardized in the future.

I do not think that YOU understand that the constitution cannot be allowed to be disregarded by any party subject to it. Pennsylvania is a party to it.

[roamer_1]

It was proven.

Nothing hard about that.

It was proven that the Rapist's Harridan did indeed have those emails on her hard drive.    The Espionage Act does not require wilfull knowledge that the action was illegal.

It was also proven that there were insufficient true electors in the 2020 election to seat that Biden bimbo.

No, none of that was proven in fact. All of it reported as such and such, but none of it proven in a court of law, nor in anything like it, where evidence is weighed and countered to determine its veracity. Y'all pick what you want to hear and run with it... Such is the problem with waggin tongues.

If it is true, then prove it. IN COURT. In finding of fact. Not on whatever the media sends up your smoke hole.

[roamer_1]

I do not think that YOU understand that the constitution cannot be allowed to be disregarded by any party subject to it. Pennsylvania is a party to it.

I don't think it has been disregarded. If the legislature is the SOLE authority, then it is too the SOLE arbitrator, else it is not the sole authority. Period. And that is granted to the legislatures of the states variously on purpose. I don't see how that can be circumvented. And I think it does damage to do so.

[goatprairie]

I don't think it has been disregarded. If the legislature is the SOLE authority, then it is too the SOLE arbitrator, else it is not the sole authority. Period. And that is granted to the legislatures of the states variously on purpose. I don't see how that can be circumvented. And I think it does damage to do so.

Yes, it seems some people believe in state's rights...except when they don't. I seriously doubt Texas would like Pennsylvania (or any other state) butting into their electoral affairs.