That is legislating from the bench, and should not stand if reviewed by a higher court. Too many judges are doing this today, and it needs to be stopped. Removing those guilty of this practice would be a good start.
Federal law is State officials must certify their state’s slate of presidential electors by December 11th.
This ruling says that is not discretionary
Then basically it says that campaigns can still challenge election results, but law enforcement issues get investigated by law enforcement and decided in courts.
"law enforcement and the courts remained the proper venue for any investigations, challenges or concerns about the integrity of an election."
This is the most unconstitutional thing I have ever heard. If certification is mandatory then it’s unnecessary and whoever the media says wins has to win.
But having to certify the election is certainly constitutional.
I think you may be thinking that this means elections can't be contested. They can. There are methods for this and venues for this. But that is not what certification is for.
Certification is a stamp of approval by a human being with free will who has been charged with the duty of examining whatever he has been asked to certify and determine whether he deems it legitimate or not. If you require someone to certify something they deem to be illegitimate then there is no point in asking them to look over it in the first place and give their personal stamp of approval. If that is the case then certification is meaningless and pointless and the process should then be automated. Something tells me if such a law ever was put to the supreme court a simple first amendment challenge would be all that was needed to strike it down.
With due respect, I think you are misunderstanding what the final certifcation is about.
It's saying we have done all the steps to count and certify the votes. It's been described as the period at the end of a sentence. Prior to that count certify their vote. If there are discrepancies and issues then people can go to court. Law enforcement in the courts are where serious disputes on votes are handled.
No law can force anyone to certify anything where cheating or dishonesty is suspected. That law doesn't pass Constitutional muster. So it is null and void.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - Quote by: John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
No law can force anyone to certify anything where cheating or dishonesty is suspected.
There are venues and methods to challenge election results. Refusing to certify is not a legal method for this. Certifying is considered ministerial which means it's a duty and personal judgement does apply.
Ministerial tasks are duties that follow a predetermined plan or established rules and procedures, and do not require personal judgment or discretion.
For example, when a judge hands down a decision, the county clerk has to put this on the docket. It is not up to the county clerk to decide if they agree with the decision or not. This is a ministerial task. They are required to do it.
That law doesn't pass Constitutional muster. So it is null and void.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law,
These do not apply.. it's Constitutional.
Again the Constitutional and legal ways to challenge election results happen elsewhere, not during certification.
To certify is to approve of, or agree. It is actually their duty, as stewards of a Constitutional office where public trust is required, to not certify election results that may be tainted. That is literally what they are there to decide.
Final certification by the deadline legally required is about saying that all the procedures prior to that date done by counties and others to certify the vote have been handled. If there are large issues that indicate election results are tainted, in your words, That's supposed to be handled by law enforcement and the courts. They are required to comply with court decisions. Say for example there is a dispute over 3,500 ballots with funk postmarks and one side brings a lawsuit to have them counted and the court rules these 3,500 ballots are not valid because they missed the deadline. They have to certify they are not counting those 3,500 ballots.
The election board is not the final arbiter on these 3500 ballots. But they have to certify that at the end of the process these were deemed invalid and are not part of the final count
Election certification refers to the process of election officials attesting that the tabulation and canvassing of the election are complete and accurate and that the election results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in a particular election.
If there are indications of inaccuracies or cheating, they are duty bound not to certify. It is that simple. What Arizona did to Tina Peters is criminal, and tyranny. She was 100% correct in what she did. Corrupt government is getting away with it due to the ignorant masses that fail to check government as Jurors in courtrooms.
Back to the supreme court,and we all know what they did,and what the lower court did to Tina,DEMORALIZING IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT ,If daddy gets in and dont clean all these motherfuckers out ,were FUCKED,and i don't trust Kemp he's compromised and we all know it,The Dems have placed all these positions of power in all the right places and the MILITARY will be the only way,i'm tired and this shit is getting old.
I agree with this ruling and it may be by design to make sure that all electors certify Trump's win ! there has to be a mechanism for challenging a corrupted election but the electors should not have unilateral control to decline to certify
They already certified a fraudulent election without this rule so I don't see the worry here. Perhaps this will actually work in our favor if the dems try to pull something of this sort, saying the election was fraudulent.
If the liberal judge feared angering the populace and the liberal cop knew everyone was waiting for a reason to get him, they wouldn't do these things.
One wonders- if Trump wins Georgia in a landslide, will the Dems will want to hold off on certification?
Of course they will. Now it's seems they've handcuffed themselves.
That’s going to backfire. Trump is going to win even with their cheating. To Big To Rig! The Dems will have to certify 🤣
Yep, no recourse for the left at that point. You might say it will be their precipice.
That is legislating from the bench, and should not stand if reviewed by a higher court. Too many judges are doing this today, and it needs to be stopped. Removing those guilty of this practice would be a good start.
What's the legislating?
Federal law is State officials must certify their state’s slate of presidential electors by December 11th.
This ruling says that is not discretionary
Then basically it says that campaigns can still challenge election results, but law enforcement issues get investigated by law enforcement and decided in courts.
"law enforcement and the courts remained the proper venue for any investigations, challenges or concerns about the integrity of an election."
This is the most unconstitutional thing I have ever heard. If certification is mandatory then it’s unnecessary and whoever the media says wins has to win.
I don't understand your logic with this
But having to certify the election is certainly constitutional.
I think you may be thinking that this means elections can't be contested. They can. There are methods for this and venues for this. But that is not what certification is for.
Certification is a stamp of approval by a human being with free will who has been charged with the duty of examining whatever he has been asked to certify and determine whether he deems it legitimate or not. If you require someone to certify something they deem to be illegitimate then there is no point in asking them to look over it in the first place and give their personal stamp of approval. If that is the case then certification is meaningless and pointless and the process should then be automated. Something tells me if such a law ever was put to the supreme court a simple first amendment challenge would be all that was needed to strike it down.
With due respect, I think you are misunderstanding what the final certifcation is about.
It's saying we have done all the steps to count and certify the votes. It's been described as the period at the end of a sentence. Prior to that count certify their vote. If there are discrepancies and issues then people can go to court. Law enforcement in the courts are where serious disputes on votes are handled.
Maybe I am, but I’m afraid your explanation doesn’t help me understand it much better.
well we all know how that turned out.
No law can force anyone to certify anything where cheating or dishonesty is suspected. That law doesn't pass Constitutional muster. So it is null and void.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Quote by: American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition Source: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Quote by: Marbury vs. Madison Source: 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." - Quote by: John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.
There are venues and methods to challenge election results. Refusing to certify is not a legal method for this. Certifying is considered ministerial which means it's a duty and personal judgement does apply.
For example, when a judge hands down a decision, the county clerk has to put this on the docket. It is not up to the county clerk to decide if they agree with the decision or not. This is a ministerial task. They are required to do it.
These do not apply.. it's Constitutional.
Again the Constitutional and legal ways to challenge election results happen elsewhere, not during certification.
To certify is to approve of, or agree. It is actually their duty, as stewards of a Constitutional office where public trust is required, to not certify election results that may be tainted. That is literally what they are there to decide.
This is literally false.
Final certification by the deadline legally required is about saying that all the procedures prior to that date done by counties and others to certify the vote have been handled. If there are large issues that indicate election results are tainted, in your words, That's supposed to be handled by law enforcement and the courts. They are required to comply with court decisions. Say for example there is a dispute over 3,500 ballots with funk postmarks and one side brings a lawsuit to have them counted and the court rules these 3,500 ballots are not valid because they missed the deadline. They have to certify they are not counting those 3,500 ballots.
The election board is not the final arbiter on these 3500 ballots. But they have to certify that at the end of the process these were deemed invalid and are not part of the final count
Election certification refers to the process of election officials attesting that the tabulation and canvassing of the election are complete and accurate and that the election results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in a particular election.
If there are indications of inaccuracies or cheating, they are duty bound not to certify. It is that simple. What Arizona did to Tina Peters is criminal, and tyranny. She was 100% correct in what she did. Corrupt government is getting away with it due to the ignorant masses that fail to check government as Jurors in courtrooms.
Back to the supreme court,and we all know what they did,and what the lower court did to Tina,DEMORALIZING IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT ,If daddy gets in and dont clean all these motherfuckers out ,were FUCKED,and i don't trust Kemp he's compromised and we all know it,The Dems have placed all these positions of power in all the right places and the MILITARY will be the only way,i'm tired and this shit is getting old.
I agree with this ruling and it may be by design to make sure that all electors certify Trump's win ! there has to be a mechanism for challenging a corrupted election but the electors should not have unilateral control to decline to certify
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1846267316163502080/pu/vid/avc1/640x360/4g2SCPfttTWvWx0s.mp4
And Pennsylvania and NC and…
This same judge just made another ruling designed to help steal the election in Georgia: Judge Blocks Georgia Rule Requiring Counties to Hand-Count Ballots
They already certified a fraudulent election without this rule so I don't see the worry here. Perhaps this will actually work in our favor if the dems try to pull something of this sort, saying the election was fraudulent.
I wonder if anyone will file an appeal, or will the Georgia Supreme Court go ahead and do their damn job and overturn this sham ruling?
locals should be raising hell
Good. He just outed himself as corrupt and unfit for the bench.
Boomerang is coming. And it is unstoppable.
"You must certify this fraud, or you'll be breaking the law..."
🤔
It's a good thing they are showing their hand early. Court cases coming I think.
If the liberal judge feared angering the populace and the liberal cop knew everyone was waiting for a reason to get him, they wouldn't do these things.
If this is a REAL WAR, both sides have cannons to fire. Boom, BOOM, boom ,BOOOM!
Win on appeal.