If blame is to be assigned for the Jan. 6th protest, our S.C. should top the list

[TheTexan]

Should "blame" be assigned for Jan 6 protest

Or "credit"

[johnwk]

Should "blame" be assigned for Jan 6 protest

Or "credit"

Huh?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

[TheTexan]

Huh?

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

the word "blame" just has such a negative connotation to it

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I never seen the dem's so happy about such a "tragic" day Pelosi was practically giggling like a school girl

[Sonny Tufts]

And what does that have to do with what I posted?

JWK

It refutes your fatuous claim that "elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state."

[vita3]

I never seen the dem's so happy about such a "tragic" day Pelosi was practically giggling like a school girl

OF course she was happy, all conversation went from election fraud televised LIVE inside Congress to Congress is now the victim & deserves protection & pity.

Plus the other side can now be prosecuted.. Instead of those committing voter fraud

Incredible move by the Powers that Be. Just as effective as Reichstag fire

[johnwk]

It refutes your fatuous claim that "elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state."

.
Texas did submit a BILL OF COMPLAINT to the Supreme Court of the United States, and instead of giving it a hearing, examine evidence and listen to sworn witnesses, members on the Court lied and RULED that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”


But, the irrefutable fact is, elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people, not only in a state doing so, but in other states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in the offending state, and therefore, states so offended by illegal voting practices in a federal electoral process do have a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [1]

If, after counting the PA election results a particular candidate would win, and election officials in PA do not like that candidate and add a million illegal ballots to the count so their candidate of choice wins, such action not only is an infringement upon the right to vote for PA’s voters, but likewise negatively affects voters in other States. The fact is, the collective vote of voters within each State, for their chosen candidate who is not liked by PA election officials, is diminished by the illegal ballots added to PA’s election results which not only illegally tilts the election results in the State of PA, but also awards PAs Electoral College vote to a candidate who had really lost in the State of PA…[2]

So, once again, as succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, who you and others apparently disagree with, and without a legitimately expressed reason, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

[1] "The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court." See Texas Bill of Complaint

[2] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.




.
JWK

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel