If the Constitution was this black and white there would be no need for the Supreme Court.
You are correct the that the Constitution does not specifically provide a procedure for decertifying a fraudulent election; however, it doesn’t provide any specific language on accepting a fraudulent election either.
Your argument rewards fraud and corruption by claiming if you can make it from Election Day to January 6th, the fraud is no longer subject to adjudication. It doesn’t take a Constitutional Scholar to see this was never the intent of the Framers.
Interestingly your argument serves as a prime example of why the Electoral Act is unconstitutional, because it imposes artificial deadlines on the process that can, and as we plainly see, have been employed to force the certification of a fraudulent election. Pence’s letter recognized there were known unconstitutional irregularities in many key states, but cited the Electoral Act as the reason he was powerless to stop the fraud.
The Constitution is largely a limiting, constraining document. It prevents the govt from doing almost everything; it compels the govt to do almost nothing. Its job isn't to compel. That's the genius of the 10th Amendment. Anything not explicitly permitted for the fedgov to do is prohibited and is delegated to the States, or to the People directly.
Agreed and the State Legislatures have the Constitutional authority to adjudicate elections. Doubtful anyone can show a statute of limitations for decertifying an election other than the term being completed.
It's up to us, stay positive.
Hi handshake and panicing shill. Welcome here to the end of your indoctrination, fag.
Look up United States vs. Throckmorton.
There is common law that supercedes the constitution regarding fraud. We don't need the constitution we need to prove fraud. It vitiates everything.
If the Constitution was this black and white there would be no need for the Supreme Court.
You are correct the that the Constitution does not specifically provide a procedure for decertifying a fraudulent election; however, it doesn’t provide any specific language on accepting a fraudulent election either.
Your argument rewards fraud and corruption by claiming if you can make it from Election Day to January 6th, the fraud is no longer subject to adjudication. It doesn’t take a Constitutional Scholar to see this was never the intent of the Framers.
Interestingly your argument serves as a prime example of why the Electoral Act is unconstitutional, because it imposes artificial deadlines on the process that can, and as we plainly see, have been employed to force the certification of a fraudulent election. Pence’s letter recognized there were known unconstitutional irregularities in many key states, but cited the Electoral Act as the reason he was powerless to stop the fraud.
The Constitution is largely a limiting, constraining document. It prevents the govt from doing almost everything; it compels the govt to do almost nothing. Its job isn't to compel. That's the genius of the 10th Amendment. Anything not explicitly permitted for the fedgov to do is prohibited and is delegated to the States, or to the People directly.
Agreed and the State Legislatures have the Constitutional authority to adjudicate elections. Doubtful anyone can show a statute of limitations for decertifying an election other than the term being completed.
Oh, bless your heart hun, you are in for a very rude awakening