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

[Hoodat]

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?

What part of TYRANNY is so hard to understand?  Courts can do whatever in the hell they want with zero regard for the Constitution?

North Dakota hires mercenaries from Manitoba to cross into Minnesota, steal all their iron ore reserves, agricultural reserves, and freight cars, and bring all the loot to North Dakota.  Minnesota seeks restitution through the federal judiciary as stated in Article III and files suit in federal court asking for relief.  Yet you see nothing wrong with the court telling Minnesota that they, as a State wronged by another State, have no standing?  Seriously?

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!

The ONLY authority being asked here is the right for their case to be heard under Article III.  Nothing imaginary about that.

[roamer_1]

What part of TYRANNY is so hard to understand?  Courts can do whatever in the hell they want with zero regard for the Constitution?

North Dakota hires mercenaries from Manitoba to cross into Minnesota, steal all their iron ore reserves, agricultural reserves, and freight cars, and bring all the loot to North Dakota.  Minnesota seeks restitution through the federal judiciary as stated in Article III and files suit in federal court asking for relief.  Yet you see nothing wrong with the court telling Minnesota that they, as a State wronged by another State, have no standing?  Seriously?

Different story - Interstate. Next.

The ONLY authority being asked here is the right for their case to be heard under Article III.  Nothing imaginary about that.

Frivolous because the various states do not have standing in a matter internal to the single state. Why waste the court's time?

Different story if there was connections to be made between the five states in question - I have held all along that it would take collusion/conspiracy to make this an interstate matter, and bring it into the jurisdiction of the court.

[Bigun]

And we are right back to the Constitution not being violated.

Yes! Because that is where the problem lies!

Because the SOLE authority is the state, and therefore the SOLE arbiter, else the state is not the sole authority.

No! The sole authority is the legislature which had acted and the people who altered what they had done were not the legislature and thus not authorized to do so! PERIOD!

The fix is the state, jealous of its powers.

For the violations of their state constitution, which also occurred, Yes!

[DefiantMassRINO]

This is the type of dispute among states that the US Supreme Court is expected to adjudicate:

https://www.unionleader.com/news/courts/new-hampshire-gains-allies-in-tax-fight-against-massachusetts/article_1830797e-dd17-589e-b43c-bb2bc1341216.html

https://www.salemnews.com/archives/our-view-sjc-says-it-none-of-dor-s-business/article_0ca89edd-14ed-509c-9ad9-3a59cbbeb462.html

... Massachusetts has always tried to take a hard line against those shoppers. The state sent tax agents across the border in the 1970s to take down the license plates of Bay Staters shopping in New Hampshire. The practice ended when fiery New Hampshire Gov. Meldrim Thomson had the agents arrested. ...

[Hoodat]

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.

So what happens when a State doesn't want to straighten it out?  Let's say the second coming of Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland runs for office.  The electoral count after election day is a decisive victory with both Texas and Florida pushing him over the top.  But when the day comes to certify the electors, the governors of each State in open defiance of State law certify the electors of the losing candidate, thus propelling that candidate to victory.

This gets repeated election after election after election, with the wishes of the voters of those two states voided in favor of the governor's pick.  And in turn, the wishes of the majority of the remaining States (as guaranteed by the Constitution) being thwarted as well.  And you're telling me that no other State has a right to a judiciary review?

[Bigun]

So what happens when a State doesn't want to straighten it out?  Let's say the second coming of Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland runs for office.  The electoral count after election day is a decisive victory with both Texas and Florida pushing him over the top.  But when the day comes to certify the electors, the governors of each State in open defiance of State law certify the electors of the losing candidate, thus propelling that candidate to victory.

This gets repeated election after election after election, with the wishes of the voters of those two states voided in favor of the governor's pick.  And in turn, the wishes of the majority of the remaining States (as guaranteed by the Constitution) being thwarted as well.  And you're telling me that no other State has a right to a judiciary review?

He @roamer_1 is flat out wrong here and knows it. He' just too damned hard headed to admit it! @Hoodat

[roamer_1]

This gets repeated election after election after election, with the wishes of the voters of those two states voided in favor of the governor's pick.  And in turn, the wishes of the majority of the remaining States (as guaranteed by the Constitution) being thwarted as well.  And you're telling me that no other State has a right to a judiciary review?

If the people don't like it, they have the remedy. They can vote the bad acting governor out. They can rearrange the legislature. Such a thing, longstanding, is passive acquiescence. Troublesome, I know. I would love to tell NY how to vote, and make em do it.

Luckily, That ain't none of my business.

[roamer_1]

He @roamer_1 is flat out wrong here and knows it. He' just too damned hard headed to admit it! @Hoodat

No, my belief in my position is quite adamant. I see it as a matter of state sovereignty, and I am not likely to move on that.

[Bigun]

No, my belief in my position is quite adamant. I see it as a matter of state sovereignty, and I am not likely to move on that.

I'm all for state sovereignty as well but here they have ceded authority to the federal government to write the rules for how presidential electors are to be selected and THAT is what governs here.

[roamer_1]

Maybe that is the approach. Sovereignty.

In what things are the various states sovereign? Sovereign - You know, Sole authority. Not subject to the whim of any other state or federation, and under no subjection to the courts... KING.

Or is state sovereignty just a thing we say??

Legit question.

[Hoodat]

Different story - Interstate. Next.

Minnesota → Manitoba →  North Dakota  -  Not Interstate

Frivolous because the various states do not have standing in a matter internal to the single state. Why waste the court's time?

This isn't a matter internal to a single State.  Texas petitioned the court for a redress of grievances because it (along with other States) were harmed by the unconstitutional actions of another State.  It is all in the filing.

This from Amici Curiae, State of Missouri, et al:

States have a strong interest in
ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not
diluted by the unconstitutional administration of
elections in other States. When non-legislative actors
in other States encroach on the authority of the
“Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a
Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not
just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the
United States who casts a lawful ballot in that
election

The electoral power of each State who played by the rules was diluted by the unconstitutional actions of another.

[Bigun]

Maybe that is the approach. Sovereignty.

In what things are the various states sovereign? Sovereign - You know, Sole authority. Not subject to the whim of any other state or federation, and under no subjection to the courts... KING.

Or is state sovereignty just a thing we say??

Legit question.

Honest answer! Read the 10th amendment. It is perfectly clear on the subject.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Bigun]

Minnesota → Manitoba →  North Dakota  -  Not Interstate

This isn't a matter internal to a single State.  Texas petitioned the court for a redress of grievances because it (along with other States) were harmed by the unconstitutional actions of another State.  It is all in the filing.

This from Amici Curiae, State of Missouri, et al:

States have a strong interest in
ensuring that the votes of their own citizens are not
diluted by the unconstitutional administration of
elections in other States. When non-legislative actors
in other States encroach on the authority of the
“Legislature thereof” in that State to administer a
Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not
just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the
United States who casts a lawful ballot in that
election

The electoral power of each State who played by the rules was diluted by the unconstitutional actions of another.

  There it is!

[roamer_1]

Minnesota → Manitoba →  North Dakota  -  Not Interstate

Sure it is. It crossed state lines. It is external to the state. Beyond it. It matters not that it went international first, as international is also in the federal purview.

This isn't a matter internal to a single State.  Texas petitioned the court for a redress of grievances because it (along with other States) were harmed by the unconstitutional actions of another State.  It is all in the filing.

[...]

The electoral power of each State who played by the rules was diluted by the unconstitutional actions of another.

I see that as every bit as bent up as what they do to the commerce clause. By that measure, there is always effect... ANYTHING goes.

[HoustonSam]

I understand your point, but that ain't the point at hand. The sole arbiter to determine what the legislature wants is the legislature themselves. They determine when what they want is violated, and no one else.

...But there are special circumstances that would assume something different than normal had to be done. There is leeway built into the system....It never goes as perfectly as the law demands. Who determines whether there has been an egregious failure, versus folks trying their best to work with what they have?

Your argument does have merit @roamer_1 ; no legislature can prescribe specific procedures to account for every possible sequence of events.  But I think one can easily distinguish between local in-the-moment necessity and systematic judicial or executive direction.  It might be more difficult to distinguish between truly necessary local-in-the-moment reactions to conditions and mal-intentioned local distortions disguised as necessary reactions.

Be careful what you wish for. If you open this can of worms, there is nothing to stop Dem states from filing frivolously to force conservative states to toe their own line. When nobody anywhere toes the line perfectly.

Any legitimate cause for suit, or any recognized right, will be abused by some.  However the legitimate cause or the recognized right still exists.  In this case the principle is simply whether or not some authority other than the legislature directed a systematic change to procedure.  That should not be difficult to distinguish from frivolous complaints or local necessities.

[Hoodat]

This is the type of dispute among states that the US Supreme Court is expected to adjudicate:

Under what authority?  What is the legal basis for the federal judiciary settling cases between States?  And while you're at it, what are the rules regarding 'standing'?  I can't seem to find any mention of it in the Constitution.

[roamer_1]

Honest answer! Read the 10th amendment. It is perfectly clear on the subject.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No... Enumerate it. In what things does the state hold general sovereignty - Not beholden to anyone... Or does state sovereignty exist at all?

[Hoodat]

Sure it is. It crossed state lines. It is external to the state. Beyond it. It matters not that it went international first, as international is also in the federal purview.

[The vote of] Electors also cross state lines.

[HoustonSam]

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

No, only the states that violate the Constitution.

[DefiantMassRINO]

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-settles-electoral-college-disputes

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-constitution-and-contested-presidential-elections

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12

As a consequence of the disputed election of 1870, Congress enacted a statute providing that if the vote of a state is not certified by the governor under seal, it shall not be counted unless both Houses of Congress concur.

... to this layman, it seems that if a state legislature cannot resolve the selection of electors and have that result certified under seal by that state's governor, both houses of Congress must concur to accept disputed electors.

... state legislature decides how electors are chosen
... electors are chosen by means prescribed by state legislature
.... (? state legislature nullifies popular vote to select electors ?)
... governor certifies states' electors under seal
... (? state governor does not certify state's electors' vote under seal ?)
... Congress counts electors' votes
... (? disputed elector votes not certified by governor under seal need concurrece of both houses of Congress to be counted ?)

If Texas had issues with Arizona's electors, it seems it could have been argued before both houses of Congress if the governor of Arizona had failed to certify the votes under seal.

What a mess ... hey Dick Wolf, time for Law & Order: Electoral College

[Hoodat]

If the people don't like it, they have the remedy. They can vote the bad acting governor out. They can rearrange the legislature.

But the governor refuses to leave.  He kicks the legislature out of the Capitol and runs the State as he sees fit.  And no one in the State has the moxie to challenge him.  Each election year, he holds dummy elections, but at the last minute overrules the results and puts his own choices in.

How many elections would the other States have to put up with this tyrant influencing Presidential elections before a court decided another State's protest against this egregiously unconstitutional action deserved judiciary review?

[roamer_1]

Your argument does have merit @roamer_1 ; no legislature can prescribe specific procedures to account for every possible sequence of events.  But I think one can easily distinguish between local in-the-moment necessity and systematic judicial or executive direction.  It might be more difficult to distinguish between truly necessary local-in-the-moment reactions to conditions and mal-intentioned local distortions disguised as necessary reactions.

Ahh, but there's the rub, right @HoustonSam ? Here we are in the midst of a 'pandemic'... and the mischief that can be made of it abounds. But how does one guard against that mischief, wrapped as it is in all its phony legitimacy, and still protect the right to leeway necessary in the general principle of the matter, leaving it necessarily in the hands of the state legislature, where the people of the state retain their own voice?

Any legitimate cause for suit, or any recognized right, will be abused by some.  However the legitimate cause or the recognized right still exists.  In this case the principle is simply whether or not some authority other than the legislature directed a systematic change to procedure.  That should not be difficult to distinguish from frivolous complaints or local necessities.

Really the principle of the thing is removed from whether 'some authority other than the legislature' to why 'some authority other than the legislature'.

We have already determined that others do necessarily step in in the immediacy of the event. Now we are arguing the increment and the necessity... and who should be free to do that.

In the end, your argument is that others, outside of the state, have authority to determine that, remonstrating the state in its sovereignty...

But the SOLE authority is the state. Any remonstrating belongs to the state to execute. Or in fact, the state does not have that necessary leeway, and cannot act on it's own. And that means they are not the sole authority.

[Bigun]

No... Enumerate it. In what things does the state hold general sovereignty - Not beholden to anyone... Or does state sovereignty exist at all?

In all things not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution.  Who gets to determine how presidential electors are to be selected is one of the things delegated by the constitution:

Article II

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector...

[roamer_1]

[The vote of] Electors also cross state lines.

no, it does not.

[Sled Dog]

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.

You people who love the fact that the election was stolen to put Biden in the White House in violation of the Constitution make the silliest damn arguments.

The Constitution grants to the state legislatures the SOLE AUTHORITY to define the rules for selecting their electors.

It does not say that the legislatures are the only body with standing to sue the other states if the other states cheat.

In fact, the filing of federal lawsuits on behalf of the state is a function of the state's executive authority.   

But, you need all the silliness you can come up with to pretend the election wasn't stolen.