Yeah, no shit dude, she's also literally made in Slovenia.
A product made in China doesn't suddenly become a fruit of America when I buy it.
Lmfao. Assuming actors on the left could even meet the Sec. 1(iii) threshold, please explain to me how an executive order that allows the freezing of property and property interests has any bearing on the transfer of power.
We've been predicting that a pandemic is coming for a while now, I don't think wargaming in and of itself is suspicious.
Bro... you realize Melania is from Slovenia, right? She's doesn't fall into the "our women" category to begin with lmfao.
Your welcome to point out what provision of the Constitution is being violated by any of this. I'll try to respond as best as I can.
Law degree <3. Feel free to revisit this after January 20th, when Biden takes office and the country (shockingly) does not fall into chaos.
Not really, just bored of hearing the same old "wait for the uprising" argument from keyboard warriors.
Go back to TD.W.
Lol. No, this isn't a constitutional crisis.
Miranda v. Arizona was a constitutional crisis with regard to the Fifth Amendment. Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny (e.g., Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges) were constitutional crises with regard to substantive due process. Bush v. Gore would have been a constitutional crisis if the Court sided with Gore, as they would have literally changed the outcome of an election.
This is just a bunch of angry losers filing barely comprehensible lawsuits in the hope of stirring up political capital sufficient to cause civil unrest. We'll see a few weeks of protest lasting until Biden takes office, then — like always — the masses will go back to their 9-5 jobs and be placated by angry figureheads on television until the next election cycle. C'est la vie.
Given how badly Powell's actions have been drafted in the past, I wouldn't put it past her to have monumentally fucked up the filings for the Arizona and Wisconsin petitions.
Also, it's kind of an unspoken rule in the legal field that you never blame the clerks, especially not in a formal legal filing (as she did in her motion). Law is a field with strict filing guidelines and rules that, usually, clerks are a lenient with enforcing. If you piss a clerk off, then expect to see your future filings rejected for being a centimeter out of required metric.
Wow, you mean rushing vaccine production wasn't a great idea? Who would've guessed.
Census data for non-presidential cycles always shows lower voter registration. For example, in 2016 the total number of registered voters was 157 million.
I've always loved hollow Earth theory for this exact reason.
Yeah, we shouldn't need ID for either of those, it's just another method for the State to categorically surveil citizens.
What are you on about? This place was created like a week ago as an off-shoot from Reddit, we're all new here and either from Reddit or TD.W.
He's not under oath, watch the whole thing. Also, given that you can only obtain information about who registered to vote in Nevada, none of this indicates anything about who actually voted.
This is the same tired argument that has been relentlessly tossed out of court. People fuck up voter registration, that's kind of the whole point of the ballot verification that happens after the election.
There's just no legitimate evidence of mass voter fraud. I don't know how to explain the lack of trustworthy evidence, other than there isn't any.
Ah, yeah, all States do it thus it's definitely not suspicious. Excellent argument.
Lol. You're on a conspiracy forum and you're in favor of mass IDing the population. Might wanna reconsider who's the shill.
The amount of lightning-fast defenses for Trump on this post lol. TD.W really has a lot of their goonies over here.
Well, since it's in the Constitution, income tax cannot be unconstitutional. Maybe the current administration of tax is unconstitutional, but the 16th Amendment is constructed very broadly and I'm not familiar with constitutional tax law.
Yeah, I was just about to mention that this lady is kind of crazy.
Not to say that anything she says can't be true, I'd just like to see some more empirical data before taking anything she says at face value.
Free speech is going to disagree with your narrative sometimes, that's the point.
Lol. We almost started a third world war via Twitter; I can't leave my house because dipshit-in-chief couldn't control a disease; the economy crashed and small businesses are dying everywhere while we keep bailing out megacorporations.
Even if you could characterize the last 60 years as entirely the result of Biden, which in itself an absurd argument, I would still say Trump is worse. Evidently, so would most voters.
Sorry, this is kind of long, but it's got a lot of good substance that I hope helps flesh out the inherent flaw in the Trump team's litigation.
I totally agree about voting rights, however their construction under the Constitution is very state-centered. We try to shy away from federal intervention as much as we can. For instance, in Shelby County v. Holder the Court explicitly struck down the Voting Rights Act's Sec. 4(b) formula for federal preclearance on concerns over federalism. However, Shelby isn't directly responsive to this, I'm just citing it to show that the federal government likes to stay out of state voting as much as possible.
There's a marked difference between the "left-wing" and "right-wing" patriots' positions. Bear in mind that, prior to the Reconstruction Era, there was no inalienable right to vote. Until that time, states were free to determine voting standards, largely, as they wished. The only instruction came from Article II, Sec. 1:
This changed with the addition of the 15th Amendment. However, it is important to note that this Amendment only guaranteed that the right "to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United states or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This was extended to sex via the 19th Amendment, poll taxes via the 24th Amendment, and above-18 age via the 26th Amendment.
Outside of these proscriptions, however, there is not much else in the Constitution about voting. Thus, while you have an undeniable right to vote in these protected classes (the left-wing patriot's position) it does not necessarily follow that you have a right to a certain value in your vote (the right-wing patriot's position).
Of course, the response to this is the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which guarantees that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is why in Bush v. Gore the Court struck down the recount on equal protection grounds, as some Florida counties were excluding and correcting votes on different grounds than other Florida counties; the votes in Florida were definitionally being subjected to unequal protection within the state. Of foremost note, a citizen of State A is not protected via State B's laws (assuming the citizen is operating entirely in State A), this is why the Texas lawsuit failed for lack of standing. Now, when a citizen of State A wants to challenge State A's election law, it gets a little more complicated...
Prior to 2008, the Court applied strict scrutiny to state-internal election law challenges. This means that, for any law restricting the right to vote, the state had to present a compelling interest that justified its use. However, the Court decided (in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008)) that equal protection analysis of voting laws requires only a balancing of the interests of voters against the interests of the state, which is more akin to something we call rational basis review. The upshot of this decision has been more state laws requiring voter ID, as well as less judicial decisions overturning state election law. The right-wing patriot's constitutional argument is even weaker here, as the underlying logic requires the inference that a law (e.g., mail-in voting) that they are not restricted by has indirectly subjected them to unequal protection under the law. This is what's called a "disparate impact" argument and we've rejected its application to facially neutral laws (see Washington v. Davis (1976)), which is what a law simply permitting mail-in voting writ-large would be.
Thus, what the right-wing patriot is left with is essentially rational basis review. I can cite a whole trove of cases for this, but the short of it is that the state always prevails in rational basis review as long as it can offer some non-prohibited reason for its law (see generally, Railway Express v. New York (1949)). Promoting voter participation is one of those permissible reasons. This is all, of course, guided by the remaining Article II, Sec. 1 deference to states to make their own voting law, as well as the post-Shelby policy for such. In short, the right-wing patriot has no constitutional argument regarding the dilution of his or her vote via their state permitting mail-in voting.