See I think that is moronic. When individual states are deciding upon outcomes that affect other states, then it should be their duty to prove that they in fact did act in line with federal statutes.
As it currently stands, the MSM and tptb have placed the burden of proof on the people who watched the fraud occur, which is patently stupid. The burden of proof should be on election officials as well as any other government officials who claim that this was "the most secure election in history". If they are going to take that position, then the people should be given undeniable evidence that this is the case (which would be attained through thorough audits). We should not have to beg to have transparency.
You and I both know that this is the only reasonable stance as well.
Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.
See I think that is moronic. When individual states are deciding upon outcomes that affect other states, then it should be their duty to prove that they in fact did act in line with federal statutes.
As it currently stands, the MSM and tptb have placed the burden of proof on the people who watched the fraud occur, which is patently stupid. The burden of proof should be on election officials as well as any other government officials who claim that this was "the most secure election in history". If they are going to take that position, then the people should be given undeniable evidence that this is the case (which would be attained through thorough audits). We should not have to beg to have transparency.
You and I both know that this is the only reasonable stance as well.
Not really. At the baseline, the allocation of the state's electorate votes is entirely at the state's discretion — that's the "Article II, state legislatures should overturn their votes" argument from the MAGA crowd got so popular. In effect, Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality once a state certifies their votes pursuant to it.
Outside of Article II, there are very few proscriptions on how a state conducts its voting, as I explain here (it's kind of long, sorry). You can fit an election fraud challenge into the Equal Protection proscription. However, since Article II establishes a presumption of constitutionality, the burden is properly on the party challenging fraud. Generally speaking, the presumption-burden shifting framework is how most of law works. If those people did indeed watch fraud occur, they should have no issue meeting this burden. The fact that they're unable to meet the burden isn't indicative of a flaw in the justice system, but rather a flaw in what they perceived.