Right, but there WAS a plandemic. The same contingencies kick in, and are allowed by the precedent of the flood (or whatever)
What "same contingencies" are those, the same ones as the imaginary Weather Contingency you refused to provide citation for?
No, the legislature does. If there is precedent of the court acting as the agent of the legislature, that IS the legislature.
Only if the legislature...this is tricky...LEGISLATES the judicial review as part of the specific election law.
But I can see you're squirming something fierce, here. You can't just admit that the Secretary of State is tasked SOLELY with enforcing the election laws established by the legislature, and cannot modify a single part of it, and that the courts cannot alter those laws either, even when it makes it easier for the Rodents to steal the election from the Evil Orange One.
If there is precedent of a wide berth given to State election committees by the legislature, then they are acting as agents of the legislature, making decisions the legislature had not predicted, then that IS the legislature.
No.
That means they have demonstrated a habit of violating the Constitution.
The Constitution is not real estate. Nobody can sneak an easement in.
You lose. A lawyer would wear you right out, because the precedent or written contingency was there before the fact of this election.
I'm an engineer. The lawyer will think he won and discover someone's put square wheels on his car.
The reality is that you have lost, because you're broken the strings on this particular harp. You are admitting, over and over and over again, that the electors were chosen by means not authorized by the legislature, and thus not chosen by the requirements of the Constitution.
Thanks for the confession. No need to sign it.
No they were not, by virtue of the state legislature signing cert. That is not a false elector.
It's a fraudulent elector. What LAW did the legislature pass authorizing the unlawful revisions enacted by the courts and the executive branches? You are aware that LAWS require a governor's signature on them, don't you?
There's no honest person who will argue that the "certification" is an ex-post facto authorization condoning prior unconstitutional acts. Naturally Principled Conservatives (TM) argue this incessantly, when driven to the corner of their inherent dishonesty.
The legislature writes what it wants, according to the Constitution. To include exceptions to the rule. The argument is in the state, not the Constitution.
Oh.
According to the Constitution, each state shall have a republican form of government, which requires that the laws of the state be enacted by the governor's signature.
There are no exceptions to the rule that the state legislatures have sole authority on how the electors shall be selected. Those rules were violated. Hence the electors so chosen are false electors.
What you're arguing is that when two baseball teams go out to play, they have an agreed set of rules, and then during the play, one team decides to change the rules so that they score one and a half runs for each of their players who makes it to Home, but the other team still only gets one. Then the final score is 7.5 to 6. YEA! The Rodent Team won!!!
Then after the game the MLB certifies the score and the rules change becomes permanent. Hooray!!! The Rodents never lose again, not ever!
Hey, you Americans, stop your whining, you lost according to the rules. What? Who cares that the rules were changed in the middle of the game? That doesn't matter. What matters is that we won, you did not. Orangeman Bad.
That's your argument.
See any holes in it? I bet the Americans see plenty.
I am in NW Montana 60 miles from Canada in the heart of the Rockies... with the griz and the wolf, and real actual sled dogs. Most every one of my wolf-malamutes have been trained to the sled. So yeah. Snow. More than you.
Oh. Thought you were a Texas puke. Montana might get a little snow once in a while. No, not more than what I grew up with. But nice try. Have you managed to find the Weather Exception to the requirement that only state legislatures can determine how presidential electors are chosen?
I didn't think so.
That's the point. They are.
Naw. I got all the guns I need. and they ain't locked up, and they're all loaded. and there ain't nothing worth shooting up in these mountains that I ain't shot and ate.
The legislature writes what it wants. Since the constitution assigns elections solely to the state legislatures your argument is with the legislatures.
I have no argument with the legislatures, unless they mailed out a bazillion easily defraudable ballots as they did in the Rodent states. So I can now assume you like stolen elections based on mail fraud felonies?
My argument is with the courts, who have no authority interfering federal elections, and the governors, whose chance to affect the rules ends with their signatures on the election law. And, of course, with the Never Trumping Principled Conservative (TM) Orange Man Bad fools that like the results of this particular stolen election so they can brag about how they value their liberty and other equally harmful and stupid things to say.
The Constitution assigns the thing solely to the legislatures. They can do whatever they want. With the Constitution's blessing.
That is the bare fact. And whatever the legislature has written over the years to allow for contingencies is all an act of the legislature, just as much as the normal electoral law. And every time precedent was set by the court and the legislature did not act to correct it, is also the legislature by way of passive acquiescence, because as the sole authority and therefore arbiter, that which they don't correct remains in precedence.
Yeah, that's not what happened here, and you know this. What happend was that Trump was going to win the election, so...MONTHS before the election, the Secretaries of State and the state courts decided to hand down rulings doing all sorts of things that violated state election law.
But you know all this.
That is not spitting on the Constitution.
That's why I used (p) in that particular word.