Nope. See sources posted throughout this and other threads. Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize Congress with Electoral dispute adjudication powers. Necessary and Proper argument is invalid.

Love how Berry failed to even attempt an argument on Constitutional grounds, never once quoting the actual Constitution where this alleged judicial authority of Congress is enumerated. At least other defenders of the ECA attempted the week Necessary and Proper argument.

It's one thing to argue what one thinks might be the better solution, but another to argue that the Constitution actually authorizes Congress to enact as much via statute. Nope. Not how the Constitution works. If the majority of imbeciles in this country truly want the most partisan shitfuckers in the land (Congress) to be the judges of elections, then they can amend the Constitution, as required by the Constitution. Until then, COURT is in session, with judges presiding.

If you've still yet to read the book Ballot Battles, it is certainly worth your time. In particular, pay attention to the author's treatment of the history of judicial development in regards to election matters, and also focus on his conclusion chapter and his suggestions for improvments. He mentions passing statutes, BUT this would be to enact Tribunals which Congress is authorized to do so under Article 1 Section 8. Said Tribunals must however be tribunals, courts, judges, not Congressmen... maintain separation of powers and checks and balances.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article III, Section 1... can't be anymore clear.

Nope. See sources posted throughout this and other threads. Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize Congress with Electoral dispute adjudication powers. Necessary and Proper argument is invalid.

Love how Berry failed to even attempt an argument on Constitutional grounds, never once quoting the actual Constitution where this alleged judicial authority of Congress is enumerated. At least other defenders of the ECA attempted the week Necessary and Proper argument.

It's one thing to argue what one thinks might be the better solution, but another to argue that the Constitution actually authorizes Congress to enact as much via statute. Nope. Not how the Constitution works. If the majority of imbeciles in this country truly want the most partisan shitfuckers in the land (Congress) to be the judges of elections, then they can amend the Constitution, as required by the Constitution. Until then, COURT is in session, with judges presiding.

If you've still yet to read the book Ballot Battles, it is certainly worth your time. In particular, pay attention to the author's treatment of the history of judicial development in regards to election matters, and also focus on his conclusion chapter and his suggestions for improvments. He mentions passing statutes, BUT this would be to enact Tribunals which Congress is authorized to do so under Article 1 Section 8. Said Tribunals must however be tribunals, courts, judges, not Congressmen... maintain separation of powers and checks and balances.

Nope. See sources posted throughout this and other threads. Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize Congress with Electoral dispute adjudication powers. Necessary and Proper argument is invalid.

Love how Berry failed to even attempt an argument on Constitutional grounds, never once quoting the actual Constitution where this alleged judicial authority of Congress is enumerated. At least other defenders of the ECA attempted the week Necessary and Proper argument.

It's one thing to argue what one thinks might be the better solution, but another to argue that the Constitution actually authorizes Congress to enact as much via statute. Nope. Not how the Constitution works. If the majority of imbeciles in this country truly want the most partisan shitfuckers in the land (Congress) to be the judges of elections, then they can amend the Constitution, as required by the Constitution.

Nope. See sources posted throughout this and other threads. Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize Congress with Electoral dispute adjudication powers. Necessary and Proper argument is invalid.

Love how Berry failed to even attempt ab argument on Constitutional grounds, never once quoting the actual Constitution where this alleged judicial authority of Congress is enumerated. At least other defenders of the ECA attempted the week Necessary and Proper argument.

It's one thing to argue what one thinks might be the better solution, but another to argue that the Constitution actually authorizes Congress to enact as much via statute. Nope. Not how the Constitution works. If the majority of imbeciles in this country truly what the most partisan shitfuckers in the land (Congress) to be the judges of elections, then they can amend the Constitution, as required by the Constitution.

Nope. See sources posted throughout other threads. Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize Congress with Electoral dispute adjudication powers. Necessary and Proper argument is invalid.