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

[roamer_1]

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.

That is it EXACTLY.

[skeeter]

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.

I'm sure they like living with the consequences of Pennsylvania's corrupt, unconstitutional electoral process even less.

[DefiantMassRINO]

I, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, hereby sue Texas for the harm its flatulent bovines are causing the citizens of Massachusetts by causation of Global Climate Change and rising oceans.

I also sue to have George W. Bush unelected, and that his name and likeness shall be struck from all monuments and obilesks.  So let it be written, so let it be done, comrade.

P.S., we want to take away all your guns and shutdown your oil and gas wells ... for the children.

[Bigun]

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.

It most assuredly WAS disregarded!  People not authorized to do so altered election law at will. And there is NO doubt thast the did so! None!

[roamer_1]

It most assuredly WAS disregarded!  People not authorized to do so altered election law at will. And there is NO doubt thast the did so! None!

That is not the question. Who determines the violation? You say courts. I say the state legislature. I think I am right.

[Hoodat]

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?

It isn't a question of whether they are supposed to sue.  It is a question of whether they have a right to sue, (no matter how frivolous that suit may be).  And the answer to that is an unequivocal 'yes'.  To deny a State that right is to deny Article III, Sec. 2.  You don't get to be the arbiter of which controversies are allowed judicial review and which ones are not.   All are allowed judicial review per Article III, and each should be judged on its merits.

[Hoodat]

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.

Isn't that for the judiciary to decide?

[roamer_1]

I'm sure they like living with the consequences of Pennsylvania's corrupt, unconstitutional electoral process even less.

So Texas gets to rub their noses in it and fix it for them...

That ain't what the Constitution says, and thank God for that!

[roamer_1]

Isn't that for the judiciary to decide?

Not according to the Judiciary...

[Hoodat]

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.

Uh, no.  But if you like, we can have the Texas legislature file suit instead.

[roamer_1]

Uh, no.  But if you like, we can have the Texas legislature file suit instead.

Texas Legislature has no standing in PA. Nor should it.

[Hoodat]

Not according to the Judiciary...

Ah, so the judiciary trumps the Constitution.  As long as the judiciary gets to decide, all bets are off.  Force majeure on steroids.

[Hoodat]

Texas Legislature has no standing in PA. Nor should it.

But you just said the state legislature had standing.  Please make up your mind.

[DefiantMassRINO]

How did Arizona harm Texas?

Texas selected electors, those electors voted, and their votes were read to Congress.

However, Georgia's and Florida's election laws discriminated against voters for my guy, so I want the Supreme Court to put both states on double secret probabtion for the 2022 and 2024 elections so the Green New Deal will become the law of the land.

[roamer_1]

Ah, so the judiciary trumps the Constitution.  As long as the judiciary gets to decide, all bets are off.  Force majeure on steroids.

No, the Judiciary said the states do not have standing, so any argument is moot.
What part of SOLE authority is so hard to understand?

Even if the judiciary were to exercise some imagined authority (that trumps the sole authority granted) it would be best to do it on tippy toes. No wonder at all that the SCOTUS didn't want that can of worms!

[Bigun]

That is not the question. Who determines the violation? You say courts. I say the state legislature. I think I am right.

BS.  The constitution is perfectly clear as to who gets to write laws governing the selection of presidential electors and Texas has a perfect right to sue when that provision is violated by ANY state! In fact, it has a duty to do so, and SCOTUS has NO right to refuse to hear the case!

[roamer_1]

But you just said the state legislature had standing.  Please make up your mind.

It is an internal state matter left solely in the hands of the state legislature of PA, or GA, etc.

It ain't none of Texas' business.

[Bigun]

So Texas gets to rub their noses in it and fix it for them...

That ain't what the Constitution says, and thank God for that!

Texas gets to have the law enforced! And that is all they sought to do.

[roamer_1]

BS.  The constitution is perfectly clear as to who gets to write laws governing the selection of presidential electors and Texas has a perfect right to sue when that provision is violated by ANY state! In fact, it has a duty to do so, and SCOTUS has NO right to refuse to hear the case!

I think you are mistaken in that. I know MT would take exception to Texas messin in our business... Even if it is to help shake out the dirty laundry. It ain't for Texas to do.

[Hoodat]

How did Arizona harm Texas?

That is up to a court to decide.

Texas selected electors, those electors voted, and their votes were read to Congress.

All part of a court argument to be presented to any court before a jury or panel of judges settling a dispute between two parties.

However, Georgia's and Florida's election laws discriminated against voters for my guy, so I want the Supreme Court to put both states on double secret probabtion for the 2022 and 2024 elections so the Green New Deal will become the law of the land.

That would be for a court to decide based on its merits, within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[roamer_1]

Texas gets to have the law enforced! And that is all they sought to do.

That enforcement belongs to PA and no other.

[Bigun]

It is an internal state matter left solely in the hands of the state legislature of PA, or GA, etc.

It ain't none of Texas' business.

BS!  Violations of the constitution are the business of every state who is a party to it and the court of original jurisdiction is SCOTUS for such matters!

[roamer_1]

BS!  Violations of the constitution are the business of every state who is a party to it and the court of original jurisdiction is SCOTUS for such matters!

And we are right back to the Constitution not being violated. Because the SOLE authority is the state, and therefore the SOLE arbiter, else the state is not the sole authority.

The fix is the state, jealous of its powers.

[Bigun]

That enforcement belongs to PA and no other.

You are flat out wrong here and so was SCOTUS in refusing to hear the case as Justices Thomas and Alito strongly pointed out in their dissent!

[roamer_1]

You are flat out wrong here and so was SCOTUS in refusing to hear the case as Justices Thomas and Alito strongly pointed out in their dissent!

I do not lightly give up the rights of the states variously, or respectively. I think it is up to the state to straighten it out.