Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

[JonC]

@Aaron

Now you are denying definitions of words?!!

And no, people (like me) who are socially conservative are not alt-right.


Alt-right means "a right-wing, primarily online political movement or grouping based in the U.S. whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism".

Definition of ALT-RIGHT


Words have meaning (even words you do not like).

 

[canadyjd]

What is the meaning of their certification then, if not that they are assured of the validity of the very thing they're certifying?….

That is exactly what the State Legislatures did. Every single one. All 50 States. They considered all the claims of voter fraud, looked at the evidence. Held hearings, certified the results and sent electors to congress. They upheld their oaths to the constitution as did members of congress when they accepted those electors and declared Biden the duly elected POTUS.

I understand you disagree with their decision to certify. I understand you believe the congress could have delayed the process to investigate. But you are wrong.

One way you know you are wrong is because Trump has acknowledged parts of the constitution would have to be abolished to declare him a winner or have another election for 2020.

As far as your attempt to label me a liberal, it is laughable. I’m probably one of the most conservative people you will ever meet in most issues.

Bottom line, I’m just getting tired of Trump and all the drama, never ending drama, that he brings.

peace to you

 

[Aaron]

That is exactly what the State Legislatures did. Every single one. All 50 States. They considered all the claims of voter fraud, looked at the evidence. Held hearings, certified the results and sent electors to congress. They upheld their oaths to the constitution as did members of congress when they accepted those electors and declared Biden the duly elected POTUS.

I understand you disagree with their decision to certify. I understand you believe the congress could have delayed the process to investigate. But you are wrong.

One way you know you are wrong is because Trump has acknowledged parts of the constitution would have to be abolished to declare him a winner or have another election for 2020.

As far as your attempt to label me a liberal, it is laughable. I’m probably one of the most conservative people you will ever meet in most issues.

Bottom line, I’m just getting tired of Trump and all the drama, never ending drama, that he brings.

peace to you

You still haven't told me where Congress gets its subpoena power. And the reason is because Brunson vs Adams has Constitutional implications you haven't considered, and that you fear.

 

[Aaron]

@Aaron

Now you are denying definitions of words?!!

And no, people (like me) who are socially conservative are not alt-right.


Alt-right means "a right-wing, primarily online political movement or grouping based in the U.S. whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism".

Definition of ALT-RIGHT


Words have meaning (even words you do not like).

I'm denying that you're truthful and a conservative.

 

[Aaron]

The bottom line is, if the respondents in the case are found to have been in violation of there oaths to protect the Constitution, then their certification is invalidated.

 

[canadyjd]

You still haven't told me where Congress gets its subpoena power. And the reason is because Brunson vs Adams has Constitutional implications you haven't considered, and that you fear.

You are correct that I haven’t considered Brunson vs Adams since I never heard of it. I assure you it doesn’t frighten me, however.

Congress has over site of Federal agencies and implementation of laws and budget considerations. I’m guessing Brunson vs Adams has something to do with “implied powers” like the power to subpoena.

One thing I do know is the constitution specifically gives authority to oversee elections to the States. There is a reason the founders did so. They didn’t want a federal government overthrowing the will of the people.

Like it or not… agree with the outcome or not… once the States certified their election results and sent electors to congress, the constitution had been followed and the 2020 election was over.

We are two years removed from that election. It is long past time to let it go and focus on 2024.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

The bottom line is, if the respondents in the case are found to have been in violation of there oaths to protect the Constitution, then their certification is invalidated.

And if the respondents are found to have upheld their oaths, or if the SCOTUS will not hear the case, will you let this go?

peace to you

 

[percho]

US representatives who voted to confirm the election

How could the above do that knowing the states sent the electors to them having known voting rules had been changed contrary to the laws of those states?

Exactly what do the US representatives certify? Are they rubber stamping?

I wonder why J 6 took place?

Bring about the, Rubber Stamp?

Tweet, tweet, tweet, I wonder if we missed out on any tweets? Elon Musk!

President Donald Trump: ‘But go home and go home in peace’ | News 4 Buffalo (wivb.com)

 

[JonC]

I'm denying that you're truthful and a conservative.

Doesn't matter what you deny. Facts are facts.

I am a conservative. Unlike you, I am also a Constitutionalist.

You have absolutely no ground to say otherwise as I have never posted anything that could possibly be mistaken to indicate that I am not conservative (you are simply trying to be insulting, as per your character).

You try to insult people by calling them Democrat, liberal, not conservative, leftist, ect. That proves your ignorance.

And words are words. Just because you deny some words exist does not make it so.

 

[JonC]

The bottom line is, if the respondents in the case are found to have been in violation of there oaths to protect the Constitution, then their certification is invalidated.

You are confusing state constitutions with the US Constitution.

 

[JonC]

"Mr. Brunson filed a pro se civil action in Utah state court against hundreds of members of Congress, President Joseph Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Michael Pence. He alleged that before accepting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, defendants intentionally refused to investigate evidence that the November 2020 presidential election was fraudulent."

What is the role of the Federal government, per the US Constitution, concerning elections?

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Supreme Court has reasoned that the word appoint in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, confers on state legislatures the broadest power of determination . . .

The Constitution does not prohibit electors from casting their ballots as they wish and occasionally electors have done so. In 1968, for example, a Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes rather than for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the state."

The State is responsible for choosing electors.
The electors vote.


But what can Congress do?

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

 

[Aaron]

You are confusing state constitutions with the US Constitution.

No I'm not

 

[Aaron]

I'll be back to engage more fully. Been awful busy NOT lying.

 

[JonC]

I am surprised nobody has stated a major issue with the article in the OP. It goes beyond what is constitutional.

Do we really want the federal government controlling State elections?

Election fraud is a problem. But it is a problem the State needs to investigate and take care of, not invite a federal takeover.

The federal government is too big already.

 

[JonC]

No I'm not

Yes, you are. Each State should be responsible for its own election process. They should investigate election fraud, not the Federal Government.

Congress is not responsible for the failure of a State to run its election.

States have already given away (or sold) too much power.

 

[rsr]

I am surprised nobody has stated a major issue with the article in the OP. It goes beyond what is constitutional.

Do we really want the federal government controlling State elections?

You mean as it did in 2000? Surely not.

 

[JonC]

You mean as it did in 2000? Surely not.

I'd say MOST of the Federal Government does goes beyond the US Constitution.

But I'm not gonna invite them to it.

 

[just-want-peace]

In agreement partially for both views. My take:
1 Feds should set criteria for all elections of federal offices; governing ANY & ALL federal elections in every state!!
2 States can set their own criteria for state/county/city elections!!

Third line of my sig says it all!!

 

[JonC]

In agreement partially for both views. My take:
1 Feds should set criteria for all elections of federal offices; governing ANY & ALL federal elections in every state!!
2 States can set their own criteria for state/county/city elections!!

Third line of my sig says it all!!

Well, it is certainly a different time.

You do have a point, and perhaps the US Constitution needs to be rewritten when it comes to electing a President.

People relocate often and do not identify with State citizenship as they once did.

I'm also not too fond of having electors that represent the State rather than individuals and are not bound to vote for a particular candidate.

I'm just not willing to change the Constitution. Just stubborn, I guess.

 

[Aaron]

One thing I do know is the constitution specifically gives authority to oversee elections to the States. There is a reason the founders did so. They didn’t want a federal government overthrowing the will of the people.

In January 1877, Congress established the Federal Electoral Commission to investigate the disputed Electoral College ballots.

Electoral College & Indecisive Elections | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives