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.
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.
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.
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.