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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.