2000 Mules

[newfie]

It doesn't. But it does say the states legislatures are in charge of their elections. It would be a usurpation of a right given to the states.

its within the powers of the state to decide for or against . they dont lose any power by not having them.

 

[floridays]

its within the powers of the state to decide for or against . they dont lose any power by not having them.

I think I just said it was a state right.
You interjected Congress.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

its within the powers of the state to decide for or against . they dont lose any power by not having them.

Federal Congress can't tell the state's they can't have them. Though, this is why I think the Texas suit was reasonable. When another state allows unconstitutional changes to its voting rules, that effects the other states in the union. What if the Texas legislature passed a law outlawing the Democrat party, making it illegal to have a Democrat on the ballot. That would technically be constitutional, but the blue states would lose their minds.

 

[newfie]

I think I just said it was a state right.
You interjected Congress.

congress is not in my comment you quote. state is?

 

[newfie]

Federal Congress can't tell the state's they can't have them. Though, this is why I think the Texas suit was reasonable. When another state allows unconstitutional changes to its voting rules, that effects the other states in the union. What if the Texas legislature passed a law outlawing the Democrat party, making it illegal to have a Democrat on the ballot. That would technically be constitutional, but the blue states would lose their minds.

all thats wonderful . i was commenting to the floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes.

 

[newfie]

Damn right. He even eats his KFC buckets with a fork and knife, you lowly shipping industry savages.

View attachment 384155

hell dems would have loved him if he eaten it with his fingers and wiped the grease on his coat.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

all thats wonderful . i was commenting to the floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes.

Uh huh. And I was responding to your comment about Congress prohibiting drop boxes, which is a usurpation of the state legislatures power to establish voting rules.

 

[floridays]

congress is not in my comment you quote. state is?

It was in the post I initially responded to and ended up here, where seemingly we agree it would have to be a state action.

You said this:

drop boxes have to go away. If the republicans get congress they need to pass a law that eliminiates drop boxes but they wont.

I said this:

That would be unconstitutional.

drop boxes have to go away.

For that to be Constitutional it would have to be initiated in the state houses or senates that currently allow for drop boxes,
Congress has no part

 

[floridays]

all thats wonderful . i was commenting to the floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes.

I said noting of the sort.
I said what you offered was unconstitutional.
It's all in text here. Don't put words in my mouth.
This is an arguement you need to back away from.
That was some really low trying to attribute this, floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes, to me. I never said anything of the sort.

@zubenelgenubi, his post concerning my statement was a deception.

newfie, will you retract the statement or continue to decieve?

 

[vantexan]

I said noting of the sort.
I said what you offered was unconstitutional.
It's all in text here. Don't put words in my mouth.
This is an arguement you need to back away from.
That was some really low trying to attribute this, floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes, to me. I never said anything of the sort.

@zubenelgenubi, his post concerning my statement was a deception.

The matter could be settled by bringing a suit that winds its way to the Supreme Court. Perhaps a state that doesn't have drop boxes can sue saying other states having them allows for fraud and negates their state's vote. Much in the same way Texas brought suit in the last election. In an off year without an immediate election hanging in the balance SCOTUS might actually hear it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I said noting of the sort.
I said what you offered was unconstitutional.
It's all in text here. Don't put words in my mouth.
This is an arguement you need to back away from.
That was some really low trying to attribute this, floridas comment that it was against the constitution to not have ballot boxes, to me. I never said anything of the sort.

@zubenelgenubi, his post concerning my statement was a deception.

newfie, will you retract the statement or continue to decieve?

Meh, I just took it to be a misunderstanding.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

• Dinesh D’Souza’s “2,000 Mules” election denial book was abruptly recalled.
• When told of the book’s allegations against them, one group said it was potentially “libelous.”
• True the Vote completely distanced itself from the book.

A publisher abruptly recalled the '2,000 Mules' election denial book. NPR got a copy.

Due to an unspecified "publishing error," the conservative publisher Regnery recalled the book version of Dinesh D'Souza's widely debunked election denial film "2,000 Mules." Here's what's inside.

www.npr.org

So the left wing vote harvesting groups he's accused are scared and have gone quiet. Interesting.

 

[floridays]

The matter could be settled by bringing a suit that winds its way to the Supreme Court. Perhaps a state that doesn't have drop boxes can sue saying other states having them allows for fraud and negates their state's vote. Much in the same way Texas brought suit in the last election. In an off year without an immediate election hanging in the balance SCOTUS might actually hear it.

It's already happened, not exactly the same facts. It was in the action Texas brought against the states that changed their election laws in conflict with the proceedure that their legislatures defined. That case was dismissed for lack of standing.

Scotus denied a writ of cert( signed by 21 state representatives)

House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

www.legis.state.pa.us

Supreme Court denies motion to hear Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case before election

The US Supreme Court Wednesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allowing the counting of ballots received up to three days after the elect...

www.jurist.org

 

[vantexan]

It's already happened, not exactly the same facts. It was in the action Texas brought against the states that changed their election laws in conflict with the proceedure that their legislatures defined. That case was dismissed for lack of standing.

Scotus denied a writ of cert( signed by 21 state representatives)

House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda

www.legis.state.pa.us

Supreme Court denies motion to hear Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case before election

The US Supreme Court Wednesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allowing the counting of ballots received up to three days after the elect...

www.jurist.org

Notice in my reply I mentioned that and said if we catch SCOTUS in an off year they may hear the case.

 

[floridays]

Meh, I just took it to be a misunderstanding.

I took it as typing words I never typed to say something I never said.
Which it was. Pretty cheap.
I expect that kind of thing from the left, unsettling when you hear it from the right.

 

[floridays]

Notice in my reply I mentioned that and said if we catch SCOTUS in an off year they may hear the case

The Texas suit was denied for standing. Exactly what has changed since then to change standing?
The answer is nothing. Off year or not, standing is standing.

 

[vantexan]

The Texas suit was denied for standing. Exactly what has changed since then to change standing?
The answer is nothing. Off year or not, standing is standing.

You may be right but the legality of drop boxes is a different issue. One that might be taken up if tried but we'll never know if no one does try.

 

[oldngray]

The Texas suit was denied for standing. Exactly what has changed since then to change standing?
The answer is nothing. Off year or not, standing is standing.

The problem was judges wouldn't hear the cases early because of lack of standing and then it ended up too late.

 

[floridays]

The problem was judges wouldn't hear the cases early because of lack of standing and then it ended up too late.

I assume you are speaking of the Pennsylvania petition?

 

[oldngray]

I assume you are speaking of the Pennsylvania petition?

There were similar cases all over.