Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It isn’t theoretical. Election fraud is a regular occurrence. If it weren’t potentially sufficient to change the outcome of elections, they wouldn’t bother doing it.
It is why they oppose implementing anti-fraud measures such as requiring ID when voting or verifying eligibility when registering. That would impede their ability to cheat.
huju: How do you have enough time to call most Jews?
Rooshishe Yidden.
Russia is very big. It had Ashkenazic Jews, constituting the vast majority of Russian Jews, as well as Sephardic Jews in different regions. The Ashkenazim were generally in the European part of Russia whereas the Sephardim mostly lived in the Asian parts of Russia.
Khazar Jews were a tiny number of royal family members a thousand years ago that lasted a small time before they melted into other groups of Jews and haven’t existed as entity for nearly a millennia.
The kosher filtering companies can allow WhatsApp but they will not allow Telegram.
Don’t forget the crime of the century, the guy who put his feet on Pelosi’s desk.
He truly deserves life imprisonment.
When I heard three people died of “medical emergencies” I assumed the media was hiding something. A fourth was a suicide. And the police officer’s death is also very vaguely described.
Syag, what is the real story about the five deaths?
Are the BLM Antifa mobsters and rioting terrorists who were burning down cities, attacking police and setting fire to police stations in Seattle, storming federal building in Portland and murdering Americans put on the no fly list?
Constitutional law takes precedence over statutory law. And DC is a federal territory. As such, any alleged crimes are pardonable by the President.
Most importantly, aside from this theoretical discussion, the President committed no crimes.
Any president can pardon himself. The power of pardon in the federal system is virtually absolute and the constitution makes no exception to the president’s ability to pardon himself.
Amil, you’ve changed the goal post. The question I answered, that you asked, quote: “What was the purpose of the rally” that hundreds of thousands of supporters of the President of the United States of America came to Washington, DC on January 6. The answer, as I stated, was to protest — which we you know is an exercise of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
Now you’re following up asking about the hundred or two hundred trespassers who illegally entered the Capitol. That’s not the question you asked that I answered.
Don’t mix up the hundred thousand with the hundred.
“What was the purpose of the rally?”
Expression of free speech.
“What was the purpose of people marching down to the Capitol?”
Exercise of constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
“What do they think this march would accomplish?”
Protest electoral fraud.
huju: Which Democrat vote cheater has gotten locked up since after Tammany Hall? The calls for punishment always comes after others allegedly do what Democrats have long gotten away with. It’s the same with gerrymandering; it was all well and good for that hundred years Democrats mastered it, but became undemocratic once others bested Democrats at their own game.
The difference here being that the Republicans didn’t even commit any electoral fraud, that the Democrats — as you conceded regarding Daley and others — are clearly guilty. It is true they vastly overstated the extent of the occurrence of fraud in the most recent election, but that is understandable given for how long Democrats have gotten away with it. And still fight against voter fraud prevention, such as voter ID requirements.
As far as your question as to what we should do about it, I think the answer is straightforward. Create independent bodies not answerable to elected officials in charge of running and counting the vote. And most importantly create requirements insuring anyone registering to vote and anyone voting has their eligibility and identification verified prior to registration or voting. And verify the electoral registers every few years.
Signal is little used or even known by anyone not a security freak.
Pop quiz answer: The Democrats, ever since Daley and Johnson.
No one’s right since there isn’t any norm for this issue.
DY, excellent point. Imagine a 21st century Joe Stalin was the Democrat candidate. Who wouldn’t vote for The Donald?
CTL, I’m glad to have gotten under your skin. Gut voch!
Anyone who thinks they can predict ’24 is a neophyte.
Population growth of non-Jewish Israelis are on a downhill trajectory.
There was none.
The claim there was doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
I would vote for him twice, next time. Once legitimately, and once to counteract all the dead Democrats who fraudulently vote from the grave.
What if your hobby is politics?
Since you’re such a great constitutionalist, jackk, you are well aware that the constitution gives Congress the sole right to determine the validity, or lack thereof, of any submitted electoral college votes.
If Congress rejects any, it is doing so under its constitutional powers. Much as what you described above from the constitution.
ubiq, after having read the Lawfare article are you willing to concede that the Justice Department/Attorney General have the standing to declare an act (partially) unconstitutional and act accordingly by disregarding provisions they deemed contrary to the constitution? This type of action has occurred regularly with different presidential administrations over the last half century and longer. (Obviously not with the succession act in particular, as that act has never been used in history.)
jackk, you’re a day late and a dollar short. The Democrats already HAVE played this game with their abuse of the constitutional impeachment process for use as a political weapon and a farcial attempt to overturn the election they lost and the will of the voters.
Now the Democrats are reaping what they sowed with the Republicans utilizing constitutional and legal mechanisms available in kind.
ubiq, you obviously didn’t read the first citation I posted on the Lawfare site. That article, in fact, does say that the Justice Department/Attorney General can unilaterally declare the succession act partially unconstitutional and thereafter act accordingly by skipping the two members of Congress listed in that act, for the purposes of succession.
Folks, please read Loyola University Chicago Law Journal’s “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management” before even attempting to mindlessly respond with legally inaccurate claims.
Ms. Zola, Mr. Goldsmith is an expert on federal law (among other areas of law) at Harvard Law School. You’re clearly out of your element in unsuccessfully attempting to understand the subject matter. Perhaps you can have someone explain it to you.
Suddenly the Democrats are crying how “undemocratic” it is for Republicans to use a fully legal, constitutional, process when just mere months ago the Democrats used the constitutional impeachment process as an undemocratic political farce attempt to overturn the will of the voters and the election the Democrats lost.
Charlie: Impeaching Pompeo simply moves the Acting Presidency down the line to another Trump cabinet member.
The Justice Department can issue a legal opinion before January 20 that constitutionally the succession act must skip members of Congress. Then at noon on January 20 the AG swears into office as Acting President a member of Trump’s cabinet.
As I suggested, read “A Presidential Succession Nightmare”, written by a liberal Democrat legal scholar.
Once Pence is out of office, Republican Chuck Grassley becomes the presiding officer of the Joint Session of Congress in the absence of the joint session having yet declared a winner of the electoral college.
As links aren’t permitted, Google (without quotes): unconstitutional presidential succession act
Take your pick from any number of results, especially “A Presidential Succession Nightmare” on the Lawfare site or even the Wikipedia article.
The general legal consensus is that the weight of constitutional evidence is that the act is unconstitutional in placing any Congress members in the line of succession and, therefore, they could be skipped.
If the joint session that starts on January 6 doesn’t declare a winner by January 20, there will be only an Acting President, and no elected president, in office until the joint session declares a winner.
Hadorah: It is a legal fact that the President and AG have the legal right and ability to determine a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional and so declare and act accordingly by not enforcing the act they determine is unconstitutional. This is a routine point and fact that is regularly done by presidents and AGs. Often when signing a law the president will add a “signing statement” declaring a particular provision of the law unconstitutional. And thereafter disregard the provision declared unconstitutional.
CTL: You are merely repeating your factually false claims. You are absolutely wrong about this matter of constitutional law. You may practice state civil tort in court but your knowledge of federal constitutional law is demonstrably poor.
Yaakov: I addressed your point in my P.S. The AG can declare the Secretary of State next in line after the Vice President. That would make Mike Pompeo the Acting President at noon on January 20, *IF* the scenario I described transpires.
CTL: There’s an Acting Attorney General. He has the same power as a sitting AG in this case. Furthermore, you are incorrect. None of the members of the cabinet, including AG, Acting AG, Secretary of State, etc stop serving in their positions on January 20 at noon, until and unless the new President or Acting President fires any of the cabinet members. Unless and until such time the outgoing administration’s cabinet legally continues to serve in their position.
Reb Eliezer, are you trying to hint that we’re doing nittel on January 6 due to the churban we’re expecting that day in Congress??
Navarro is correct. If the January 6 joint session of Congress lasts past January 20, then the inauguration is delayed until the joint joint session is complete and determines a winner of the electoral college. The joint session is likely to be delayed past January 6 due to multiple objections. Each objection requires two hours of floor debate. Plus there’s additional administrative time until the two houses convene for each two hour debate plus reconvene for the joint session after each two hour debate. That’s usually four hours from the time of the objection until the count continues after the debate.
There are fifty one slates of electors. There are five hundred and thirty eight electors. One Senator plus one Congressman can object to each of the fifty one slates. Or if they want to delay it even more they can individually object to each of the 538 electors. Requiring 2 hours of debate (about four hours of interruption) each time.
Congress also needs to sleep at night. It can easily go past January 20. And Michael Pence is the presiding officer of Congress who rules on how to handle each objection.
Freilichen Purim!
P.S. There’s a legitimate constitutional debate as to whether the Succession Act is constitutional in placing non-members of the Executive Branch (the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate) in the line. The Attorney General has the authority to determine its constitutionality and how to carry out the law. If it seems likely they’ll be no declared winner from the joint session of Congress before January 6, the AG potentially could rule that the Speaker and Pro Temp are skipped and therefore Secretary of State Mike Pompeo becomes Acting President on January 20, until the joint session declares a winner.
Freilichen Shushan Purim!
Saudi Arabia has been working with Israel secretly over the last few years to counter Iran. A Saudi-Israel treaty is pretty close to being signed within the next year or so. Israel has not opposed the Saudi arms sale by the US. In fact, Israel has asked Biden to maintain US support for Saudi Arabia:
Coffee Addict: Igros Moshe YD 3:91
The scholarly law review I cited, at the above-mentioned page, states that the VP’s decision to not present a submitted electoral vote would stand unless a majority of both houses of Congress voted to overrule the VP’s decision.
U.S. Const. amdt. XII —
The Senate president is required by the Constitution to “open all the certificates”.3 U.S.C. § 15 —
The Act further describes as “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates”.Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541. —
Regarding whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper submitted as a states electoral college vote, concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.(The Senate president is the Vice President of the United States.)
Regarding my earlier reference to the joke, I got the year wrong. In one case from 1889, papers sent as a “practical joke” have been presented to the joint session. (Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541.)
To huju: You’re welcome. It is the complete answer.
“No state submitted opposing sets of electors this year either. Sure a few nut jobs may have appointed themselves.”
Five states this year have multiple competing slates of electors. The Electoral Count Act clearly states that the Vice President shall open all *purported* slates of electors submitted to Congress. Even if it seems to be a complete farce. In fact, in either 2008 or 2012 (I forget which year it was) some comedian submitted an official looking purported slate of electors for a state as a joke and, in accordance with the act, Congress opened and acknowledged it.
“if aAl gore decided “forget electors im just gonna declare myself president” in that case the court COULD intervene. Correct?”
No. The court could not intervene. If the court was asked to intervene the court would declare the issue a political question for Congress to fix and something the courts are unqualified to address.
Congress could override the presiding officer (i.e. the Vice President) *if* a majority of both houses of Congress voted to override the action of the Vice President. In the absence of a majority of both houses voting to override him, the ruling of the Vice President would stand.
ubiq — The Electoral Count Act specifically addresses the problem of their being multiple sets of electors submitted to Congress coming from the same state. Because that act was passed by Congress in response to that exact problem having occurred just a few years before the act became law.