-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Your still wrong.. the few guys that withdraw their consent will achieve or loose more than any “popular consent” will.
Hint, our democratic republic is all about the individuals rights and not about mob rule. Mob rule is the only place were “popular” consent actually makes a difference. Hence doing what’s right is not always the “popular” choice.
First, you need to learn how to write in proper English.
Second, my point above was that absent a huge popular mandate, the Supreme Court reversing a Presidential election would have a delegitimizing effect on the foundation of the nation, and that popular consent undergirds the constitution. This has been challenged on a few bases. The first, yours, is ridiculous. As Jefferson noted, the government only stands upon the consent of the governed. Without that it is a failed state. The second is that perhaps I am taking the MSM line of the election being "called." On this I am guilty as charged, so take my statement arguendo. I am assuming that the states votes will be certified thusly and the Electoral College will follow. The third seems to be that Trump won, and not recognizing that is illegitimate. If so, there must be hard evidence, and it was this from which my original argument came, that the case needs to be made to the greater public, because nine unelected officials changing the results is not going to be seen as legitimate.
Finally, there is something similar going on with Iowa 02 in the house. The Republican has seemingly won, after recount, by six or seven votes. Now there is talk that Nancy Pelosi will use her power to not seat the winner, but force either a runoff or the loser to be seated. This would also, in my opinion, delegitimize the House of Representatives, though they are so far down the drain that who really would notice.
Arguments about whether I should breed, or arguments about something I didn't say?
So it's not the person who cheated fault for "delegitimizing the founding of our nation"........it's the Supreme court's for fixing the issue?
You can blatantly cheat an election so long as you have "majority consent" ?......and anyone who challenges you is "delegitimizing our foundation"
Christ you are either a troll, a commie fuck, or a simpleton....I'm thinking some combination of the 3
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Lol, all of these shill posts are amusing and everything, but Trump is still your president for the next four years.
Lots of people are about to go to prison, and some of those people are gonna be stacked up on a wall.
MAGA.
Lots of people are about to go to prison, and some of those people are gonna be stacked up on a wall.
MAGA.
No, I speak American.. I don’t need to know English. Or anything proper for that matter. I think my and your wording is causing confusion for at least me.. when I hear “popular” I think of all the looting killing thugs that by shear numbers would be considered “popular consent”. All the popular votes in the world is not gonna get me to separate myself from the constitution.. I’ve talked to too many people that say things like the constitution needs to be re written.. already you have big cities using popular consent to effect small towns miles away.
If I am misunderstanding what your saying then you’ll have to forgive this man that only learns from life experiences and doing, not reading. And having most of my rights violated before high school made it real hard for me to try and sit through gov classes in school.
What I am saying is simple. The existence of a constitutional government requires that the vast majority of the people in the country buy in to its legitimacy. To use an analogy, a marriage only works if the people involved buy into its importance. If both parties to it do not, then you end up with precious little say as to whether it survives. I'm not talking about a popular vote, which I think is a terrible idea, or rewriting the constitution. What I am saying is that actions that delegitimize the government in the eyes of a vast number of people are the greatest threat to the constitution itself. There are several I can think of that are possible -- packing the court, adding states to secure power, and overturning an election without popular support to do so. The thing is, that only one side likes the constitution in this country, so any delegitimization of it, and concurrent weakening of it, only helps the left, even if they are the ones bringing it on.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Giuliani testifying in Michigan now. I think this hearing determines whether or not MI lege will move forward on overriding the popular vote in the state.
Gentleman, using the term as loosely as possible, it seems we have stumbled upon a unique circumstance in which you are both correct only divided by semantics.
The establishment of a constitutional republic was expressly for the purpose of ensuring that a majority or current popular opinion can not be used as a simple majority to throw off our sacred institutions. Correct.
Likewise, however, if such a tremendous majority of people are disenfranchised for a period of extended time that group will undoubtedly uprise through civil unrest, lose complete faith in the sanctity of our institutions and eventually vote in enough people of their opinion that they are able through placement of judges at the scotus level and passing of laws in the congress change the very foundations. Correct.
So, you both have valid arguments.... meaning you are complete scholarly geniuses or both complete fucking douchebags for failing to realize your both fucking geniuses... I don’t know..
Last edited:
You win internet'ing today. Hilariously well put.
Check some of the state votes for same sex rights and what the SCOTUS did even after
A popular vote was achieved against said.
R
Here's the deal. As an analyst, many years ago I was hired to look into a local election for mayor, I was even on TV, my wife recorded the whole thing.
The irregularities brought to my attention had to do with reports being printed while the election was being tabulated by the tabulating computer. I analyzed the paper trail provided to me and was readily able to determine that indeed there were irregularities, and they had to do with data going from CERTIFIED election computers software into, and being reported by a different piece of software. To do that I had to read a lot, and be well versed on the particular election laws as they pertain to elections software, those are usually spelled out in great detail.
As it turns out, it is very illegal to access the election computers with any software that is not part of the CERTIFIED software. And I found that this indeed had been the case. On the day of the hearing I had 30-minutes to look at the tabulating computer (there's always just one) in detail and I found the software that was used. Later that morning in front of a judge I, not the lawyers (they did not know what to ask - over they head), asked the tech in charge about the software and he confessed under oath - no choice - I showed him the evidence in print.
That said, I could tell by what he said to me that he was not after changing votes, which he could have easily done. The judge ordered a recount, and I told my clients to prepare a statement to the effect that the results would not change in their favor, just in case. And that did come to pass. The tech was guilty of peeking with a non approved software and nothing else. The election result did not change.
It served as a lesson. ANYONE with access to the count computers is an utmost suspect. If there are no trained (in computers and the law) observers present when the votes are counted the whole thing is open to MAJOR fraud.
And very few people you can trust are able to do just that, and to be allowed to do it. The computer thing is a mess, And I KNOW computers.
The irregularities brought to my attention had to do with reports being printed while the election was being tabulated by the tabulating computer. I analyzed the paper trail provided to me and was readily able to determine that indeed there were irregularities, and they had to do with data going from CERTIFIED election computers software into, and being reported by a different piece of software. To do that I had to read a lot, and be well versed on the particular election laws as they pertain to elections software, those are usually spelled out in great detail.
As it turns out, it is very illegal to access the election computers with any software that is not part of the CERTIFIED software. And I found that this indeed had been the case. On the day of the hearing I had 30-minutes to look at the tabulating computer (there's always just one) in detail and I found the software that was used. Later that morning in front of a judge I, not the lawyers (they did not know what to ask - over they head), asked the tech in charge about the software and he confessed under oath - no choice - I showed him the evidence in print.
That said, I could tell by what he said to me that he was not after changing votes, which he could have easily done. The judge ordered a recount, and I told my clients to prepare a statement to the effect that the results would not change in their favor, just in case. And that did come to pass. The tech was guilty of peeking with a non approved software and nothing else. The election result did not change.
It served as a lesson. ANYONE with access to the count computers is an utmost suspect. If there are no trained (in computers and the law) observers present when the votes are counted the whole thing is open to MAJOR fraud.
And very few people you can trust are able to do just that, and to be allowed to do it. The computer thing is a mess, And I KNOW computers.
Last edited:
Instead of that motherfucker beating on the table with his little club he should be hitting ca Johnson on top of the head till she can no longer speak!
We’re going to see the quality of people on the legislative in PA, AZ, WI, MI and Nevada.
As far as I’m concerned just the intimidation and obstruction of observers and challengers should give them cause to decertify and deny electoral votes.
Anything less is promotion of fraud and the ignorance of law and constitution!
As far as I’m concerned just the intimidation and obstruction of observers and challengers should give them cause to decertify and deny electoral votes.
Anything less is promotion of fraud and the ignorance of law and constitution!
They quit teaching it. Civics was, for the most part, replaced by "Social Studies".
Troll. But gotta give him credit, he's better than most. Does one earn extra Soros bucks for being a good troll?
Did you mean judicial instead of legislative? I mean, either way, we are seeing the deep state.
nothing personal but our founding fathers were about profit. They were the elite businessman of the time in the region and did not like paying (as few do today) what they believed was an oppressive level of tax. The fact is the governors of the day put in place by the crown had tremendous power and would levy taxes at their discretion and to their benefit (not a big surprise it led to rebellion)
If the legislature does their constitutional duty they can decertify for investigation, call a no confidence in the vote and withhold electoral votes or cast electoral votes how they feel the legal votes dictated.
It should happen there and not need to go to Supreme Court.
That’s the main reason Rudy and team are talking to them.
Hey congrats on bridging the technology and the law, and nailing that problem. Did the case ever work up the food chain to whoever directed the "tech in charge" to do what he did? Food for thought in the current situation.
Popular support is absolutely not necessary to overturn a fraudulent election by using the due process of our courts. THAT IS WHAT THE COURTS ARE FOR YOU IDIOT.
The rule of law absolutely does not depend on popular support. It only depends on fair and impartial administration of justice.
Changing the law is a completely different matter where popular support comes into play. And even then, laws that are abhorrent to the Constitution are properly dismissed after legal challenges to them REGARDLESS of whatever popular support they enjoy.
You have done more to damage the cause of libertarianism than anyone I can remember in a long time.
PS I can't believe you ever accused me of not being very bright. Look at yourself, embarrassingly doubling down on stupid even though you've been schooled on constitutional theory more than a few times in this thread.
My AL Congressman is going to the floor today to inform them HE will oppose the Electoral College if they elect Biden. He needs support in the Senate. He will ask for it today.
This problem has to be fixed. Add this to Trump’s speech yesterday.
ETA. That would be Mo Brooks.
This problem has to be fixed. Add this to Trump’s speech yesterday.
ETA. That would be Mo Brooks.
I must have missed where anybody schooled me, or even discussed, constitutional theory. All I can see is a bunch of people asserting things that simply are not true, without any support other than their pals egging them on.
First, you can't understand the Constitution in a vacuum. This is not, as you will surely accuse, to say that the Constitution is a living and breathing document, changing to our understanding of the world. It is not. What it is, however, is a one of our two foundational documents, and without understanding both together, you can't understand either alone. Clarence Thomas has been very clear about this, perhaps more than anybody since Lincoln. The Declaration is a purpose statement, the introduction. It says why we are doing this thing completely. The Constitution is the rulebook. The former is a much more philosophical document than the latter, though many have tried to arrogate to the constitution a level of philosophy that simply does not exist. This happens on both sides. On the far right, as in this thread, you get this sentiment that the Constitution stands alone, separate from any intent or need for support. Almost a gift from God. On the left you get a constitution that boils down to one phrase "In order to form a more perfect union" and thus all is acceptable as long as it is seen in those terms. Both are garbage ways of understanding the document. The better way is through the Declaration. It tells you the whole story, that a government of men is being formed only by the consent of the governed in order to safeguard the personal and property rights of free individuals, and to provide a society in which they can strive for happiness. Seen through Lockean eyes, it is very easy to understand, as it comports with his understanding of government, though it must be said that none of the founders was purely Lockean.
Now, that is a lot of word salad, but what it means is clear. Not only do we have a rulebook for how to run a government, one which we don't follow well, but we also have a purpose statement. The purpose is not to "form a more perfect union." That was the purpose for changing from the Articles to the Constitution. The purpose is, and has always been, to have a government entered into by a group of consenting participants in order to secure personal liberties. Everything else is secondary. So, yes, the legitimacy of the constitution depends on exactly what I said, it depends on maintaining mass overall consent from those in the nation, or it constitutes nothing, no matter how great a theoretical document it might be. It is upon that foundation that I stated that something as monumental, as reversing an election result, must have mass popular support, because done without it it threatens the very underpinning of self government.
As to the rest of this, that federal courts are there to overturn elections etc, that is simply bollocks. Those are almost wholly state issues, both historically and constitutionally. They should stay that way. Even the other legal principles you mention, like that of judicial review, while certainly important are secondary to the Declaration and Constitution.
Self government is undermined when one party to it flounts the rules by which we all agreed to live by. That issue is being litigated right now in state courts.
Appeals will invariably end up in the federal courts, as is required by our republican form of government and by the Constitution.
Popular support is wholly unnecessary to hold criminals accountable for their crimes, even when their crime is to steal an election. That connection between popular support and the consent of the government is an artifact of your imagination and not supported by any accepted legal theory.
Consent of the governed is expressed through elections, not through opinion polls or editorial pages.
If the losing masses don't fucking like it they can take to the streets. Then the other side will take to the streets and settle that side of this problem.
45 states should be filing cases against 5.
What is the value of the Union if the malfeasance of the 5 can eliminate the will of the others.
What is the value of the Union if the malfeasance of the 5 can eliminate the will of the others.
That might be the most freighting and dangerous statement I've read amongst all the post-election tin-hat crazy conspiracy theories I've seen on this forum. Let's hope the "masses" on both sides don't agree with you.
No, it's neither freighting, frightening, nor dangerous.
It's a realistic statement, no matter how unfortunate the process & outcome.
It's a realistic statement, no matter how unfortunate the process & outcome.
It is a recognized Constitutional remedy....sure the one of last resort but it is legit.
It is, but conservatism would argue that to engage in it with a low chance of a more free society on the other side would actually be acting as nothing more than a pawn for progressivism. That is the great conundrum that so many on here don't seem to understand. Progressivism is not valueless, it is in the enviable position of its values being inextricably linked to its goals. Conservatism is the opposite. Its goals and feasible actions are always in great tension.
Wouldn't it be nice if our intellectual enemies had as bad of motivations as we ascribe to them. It would sure make dehumanizing them a lot easier...
They value progress toward what they believe is a better world, better society. Because of this, there are very few constraints on their actions as long as they are in the name of progress. I really don't think they want bad for the world. I just don't see good in what they want. It's different. But conservatism requires restraint that progressivism does not, which makes it harder, and perhaps a losing battle, but adopting their methods in the name of our goals isn't conservative at all.
Intellectual enemies are all well & good for when we prepare our next gen to ideologically combat them.
Right now, it has passed way beyond anything intellectual.
Pick your role & forever hold your peace.
Right now, it has passed way beyond anything intellectual.
Pick your role & forever hold your peace.
Last edited:
They never get where they want to progress to.
Every time they fail, and they always do, is because they were not progressive enough.
Utopianism is Communism without the force, lots of that shit in my AO post Civil War, nothing but relics remain.
Progressives realize their goals require force - thats a positive better world?
No restraints on their actions.....victory by any means.....we see that in action now and witnessed it through the spring/summer anywhere BLM/Antifa showed up.
Thats is a better world?
Conservatism varies based on location.
I really cant agree with British Conservatives for the most part - we abandoned that in 1775.
I do see value in conserving the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Republic as outlined in the Constitution.
Nothing has provided so much opportunity for the individual as what we have.
It needs to be conserved.
The progressives have not presented either ideologically or through example of anything better.
