U.S. Federal Elections 2024, Presidential, Senate and U.S. House of Representatives

[JWB]

[JWB]

[JWB]

[rmgill]

On 6/19/2024 at 12:41 AM, Skywalkre said:

That's the best you can come up with to defend Trump's actions?! 
 

Yes, its an explanation. 
 

and again, Biden is 50 years in government, whats his excuse for the vaccine mandate? Just as illegal, just as unconstitutional, more immoral because it was a mandate on all US residents and violated the Nuremburg code. 
 

On 6/19/2024 at 12:41 AM, Skywalkre said:

So if someone conspires (note that word... almost like it's in most of his charges in the DC filing) to commit a crime and fails... they should never be charged?

So biden conspired to violate everyones rights in medical decision making. Where are his charges? 
 

You also have to deal with the issue that trump was arguably exploring legal paths within the system. Like if Biden asked, hey, can we mandate everyone get vaccinated at the federal level and someone in the DOJ said, no that would violate a bunch of Constitutional issues and then they didn’t go through with it. Except the Biden admin DID go through with it. And had to be stopped legally in the courts. 

You really can’t grasp ideas vs actions can you? 

 

 

On 6/19/2024 at 12:41 AM, Skywalkre said:

It's not just you, the R party as a whole either has no good answer or just troubling answers like this.

Ok. Try the shoe on the other foot, how does the DNC defend it’s illegal actions? 
 

DoJ directed censorship? Thats a set of arguable felonies. So whats your good answer there? 
 

I want to see what your supposedly consistent standard is. 

On 6/19/2024 at 12:41 AM, Skywalkre said:

  You do know Stefanik has said that if she was in Pence's place on 6Jan she would have not certified (so even if that was tried and failed... that'd still be ok?). 
 

Perhaps you can point to the wealth of legal court cases decoding where that process is firmly bedded in legal concrete? 
 

Its been up to the whims of the feds to enact all manner of law, policy and guidance on firearms law for 90 or so years since NFA34. 

 

Again, lets see the consistent standard on constitutional process. 
 

Seems like, for things the left wants, they can violate the constitution and have to repeatedly go to court and be told, no you can’t do that, and then do it again and again. We saw the same with numerous cases I cited above. CDA, CDA II, and COPA all fall into that, but were more bi-partisan. 
 

On 6/19/2024 at 12:41 AM, Skywalkre said:

It's just remarkable, and terrifying, that that statement from her hasn't been met with derision from the entire R party.

Yeah. Ok. Where is your pearl clutching on the censorship by the DOJ and DNC? 

 

[rmgill]

Couple of Points in retrospect. 

I thin the GOP does a better job of self regulating it's own vis a vis government power because you have a larger fraction of limited government power types inter-mixed with those who are for a centralized power structure with no limits. I can think of several cases where Scalia and others came down against federal police powers or other such legal exercises as being in violation of limits on state power. These are justices as well as other fellow folks in various positions of congress or the executive branch. 

I don't think we saw the sale level of "limits" in the DNC. Though we saw a number of cases go 9-0 against Obama AND Biden where it came to things like EEOC, EPA and other exercises of authority. And we also saw both Obama and Biden complain to their faces during State of the Union addresses. 

Now, on electoral certification, is the point of the exercise to have the VP merely rubberstamp what ever was placed under his/her nose? OR is there some sort of approval that's implicit in the process? 


As to electors, they're chosen by the states as that state's laws allow. 

So if a state allows an official to chose them then that's legal. 
If it's by random selection by state law that is how it is. 
 

• • Clause 2 Electors

    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.

The counting:

• Clause 3 Electoral College Count

  The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

 

• Clause 4 Electoral Votes

  The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

 

[Josh]

It seems pretty clear that the intent of the EC Act was not to let the incumbent party invalidate any possible future competition, particularly as it predated term limits by more than half a century. The idea that the VP could single handedly reject states’ votes is rather insane. In any case, it has largely been superseded by 2022 legislation.

As for how states pick their ECs: sure, they can do it anyway they want, constitutionally. But each state has laws on the book for how that is handled and anyone who explicit states they are a delegate when they were in fact NOT a delegate might run afoul state law against forgery or fraud. Indeed, five different states are prosecuting various individuals for such.

[rmgill]

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

It seems pretty clear that the intent of the EC Act was not to let the incumbent party invalidate any possible future competition, particularly as it predated term limits by more than half a century.

Umm. Hang on that the US Constitution. Acts of congress don't change the constitution. 

What do you mean by EC Act? Do you mean the Electoral Count Act of 1887?

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

The idea that the VP could single handedly reject states’ votes is rather insane. In any case, it has largely been superseded by 2022 legislation.

Well, EC votes from Tennesee and Louisiana were rejected in 1864. They had been recaptured and had elections for the presidency but weren't allowed to be counted. Was that then insane? 

 

58 minutes ago, Josh said:

As for how states pick their ECs: sure, they can do it anyway they want, constitutionally. But each state has laws on the book for how that is handled and anyone who explicit states they are a delegate when they were in fact NOT a delegate might run afoul state law against forgery or fraud. Indeed, five different states are prosecuting various individuals for such.

They also have laws for how VOTES are tallied and for how voters are registered. 

Now, say a state has a law for how electors are picked, but the state violates it's own laws and does them differently. Could the VP reject that state's suite of electors on that basis during the count? 

Does the VP's count of the elector's ballots merely live up to a basic counting with no approval or rejection of same? 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

Umm. Hang on that the US Constitution. Acts of congress don't change the constitution. 

What do you mean by EC Act? Do you mean the Electoral Count Act of 1887?

 

Yes, I am referring to the idea that the VP certifies EC votes. Clearly the intent was NOT to allow a VP to preserve an administration indefinitely. Do you disagree?

Edited June 21 by Josh

[Josh]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

 

They also have laws for how VOTES are tallied and for how voters are registered. 

Now, say a state has a law for how electors are picked, but the state violates it's own laws and does them differently. Could the VP reject that state's suite of electors on that basis during the count? 

Does the VP's count of the elector's ballots merely live up to a basic counting with no approval or rejection of same? 

Any violations of state law would go through that states courts and if necessary, the SCOTUS. The federal executive branch AFAIK has no role in interpreting state law for a couple of reasons, and I’m quite sure you know that and are just shit posting. In fact as you pointed out, states are allowed to decide how they chose their EC reps with basically no federal oversight. So any assertion that the VP can pick and chose seems quite unconstitutional to my non legal mind, but feel free to make a case.

Edited June 21 by Josh

[Josh]

I would also just add, that everything you post is generally “I think the Dems did something equivalently unconstitutional therefore our unconstitutionality is justified “. You are not making sound legal arguments for democracy; you are accusing the other side of breaking the rules and then claiming it is fine to throw out the rule book forever. I would suggest whataboutism is not a foundation you want to build a country on, even if you fervently believe what you post.

Edited June 21 by Josh

[rmgill]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

Yes, I am referring to the idea that the VP certifies EC votes. Clearly the intent was NOT to allow a VP to preserve an administration indefinitely. Do you disagree?

No, but that's a hyperbolic point. 

Is the VP meant to certify votes and effect a final count? How was it done in 1864 when two states' votes were discarded? Was there a legal provision for this or was it just done? 

If you're going to demand a positive, you have to likewise also show a negative. 

[rmgill]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

Any violations of state law would go through that states courts and if necessary, the SCOTUS. The federal executive branch AFAIK has no role in interpreting state law for a couple of reasons, and I’m quite sure you know that and are just shit posting. In fact as you pointed out, states are allowed to decide how they chose their EC reps with basically no federal oversight. So any assertion that the VP can pick and chose seems quite unconstitutional to my non legal mind, but feel free to make a case.

You are aware that the federal government does precisely that at current right? 

What do you think Title 52 is? There have been legal cases over this and the federal government has been, at the executive level, been sticking it's nose into state elections for decades.  How you assert that it's NOT the case and then accuse me of shit posting is absurd. 

 

11 hours ago, Josh said:

I would also just add, that everything you post is generally “I think the Dems did something equivalently unconstitutional therefore our unconstitutionality is justified “. 

Again my point is that in the case of one area of law, say the 1st amendment, we have CLEAR interpretation as to what the law is and how and what sort of speech controls are allowed and what are not. Those have many cases on the books and it's quite clear. 

The degree with which the VP can, when he is counting the EC ballots, discard a set or not is clearly uncharted territory. You asserted that is has never happened. I provided you with a clear example for when it HAS happened. You ignore that. Explain the legal basis for excluding Tennesee and Louisiana's EC ballots in 1864 and the process. Demonstrate the positive that you asserted didn't and could not happen. 

Its a question on a area that's arguably a little nebulous vs an area where we have case law that's as clear as crystal but the DNC/feds still ignores the case law. 


 

[17thfabn]

13 Keys Tracker predict Biden win unless there is a major change:

This professor has a key tracker that he says has predict ever election since Reagan in 1984.

At this time he thinks Biden will win, but he has not made a final prediction. 

 

[Rick]

On 6/20/2024 at 12:13 PM, JWB said:

I don't see Biden getting more rural votes than Trump and I'm skeptical of the percentage of senior citizen registered voters for Biden.

[sunday]

39 minutes ago, Rick said:

percentage of senior citizen registered voters for Biden.

Before or after deceasing?

[seahawk]

It is just the liberal media talking down the lead by Trump.

[Rick]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Before or after deceasing?

[rmgill]

They can be alive and you have folks who go to nursing homes to help the woman on life support who hasn’t been able to move in months to fill out her absentee ballot. 

[Josh]

12 hours ago, Rick said:

I don't see Biden getting more rural votes than Trump and I'm skeptical of the percentage of senior citizen registered voters for Biden.

Biden is actually gaining (relatively) in some older demographics, predominantly because aging Obama/Biden voters are aging out.

[lucklucky]

 

[rmgill]

So it was Trump vs Grand-pa Simpson....

[TonyE]

Just a stutter......

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

So it was Trump vs Grand-pa Simpson....

I think that's an insult to Hellfish member Abe Simpson. Most of the time, even during his ramblings, he's coherent.

[Der Zeitgeist]

[lucklucky]

Oprah will be Democratic candidate. Or Obama wife.

Edited June 28 by lucklucky