No, it's not. Each state has the right to decide, as long as they don't violate the Constitution.
President Trump may ADJOURN both chambers of Congress over their Dereliction of Duty
- Thread starter Bigdog
- Start date
No, it's not. Each state has the right to decide, as long as they don't violate the Constitution.
Yes, as usual, I was right. Lol.
U.S. Supreme Court Slams Door on Wisconsin Vote-by-Mail ...nymag.com › intelligencer › 2020/04 › scotus-slams-door-on-wisconsin...
Apr 6, 2020 - Late Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court insisted on maintaining an ... the encouragement of public officials—have turned to voting absentee. ... petitions to liberalize absentee ballots, and by the time he ruled there were ... health care workers and those thought to be especially vulnerable to the disease, ...
U.S. Supreme Court Slams Door on Wisconsin Vote-by-Mail ...nymag.com › intelligencer › 2020/04 › scotus-slams-door-on-wisconsin...
Apr 6, 2020 - Late Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court insisted on maintaining an ... the encouragement of public officials—have turned to voting absentee. ... petitions to liberalize absentee ballots, and by the time he ruled there were ... health care workers and those thought to be especially vulnerable to the disease, ...
Typo corrected. Thanks.
No, the Court ruled by a narrow majority to reverse a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order extending the absentee ballot deadline for voting in the Wisconsin elections.
It was a procedural question,Earl.
“By changing the election rules so close to the election date and by affording relief that the plaintiffs themselves did not ask for in their preliminary injunction motions, the District Court contravened this Court’s precedents and erred by ordering such relief. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” the order reads.
It was not a Constitutional issue, and in fact the DEMOCRATS had been given more than their filing asked the 7th for.
The order from the Supreme Court put a heavy emphasis on the fact that the date for the ballots to be postmarked — not just received by elections officials — had been extended. That remedy went beyond what DEMOCRATS had even sought, the court wrote.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1
The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibited voter discrimination on the basis of race. The Seventeenth Amendment altered the manner of conducting the elections of Senators by requiring their popular election. The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited voter discrimination on the basis of sex. The Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment gave eighteen-year-olds the right to vote.
It wasn’t a typo, Uncle Dutch.
It was a lack of knowledge of the use of contractions.
De nada (you are welcome).
I consider it a public service to “educate”...
A DEMOCRAT lawsuit challenging Arizona’s absentee ballot deadline is citing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling about the Wisconsin primary to support its case, arguing that the decision to allow absentee ballots to count in Wisconsin if they were postmarked on or by Election Day should also apply in Arizona.
In a supplemental memo filed Tuesday in federal court, lawyers for a trio of plaintiffs argued that the high court’s ruling bolsters their complaint that requiring absentee ballots to be returned — rather than postmarked — on or by Election Day leads to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters when their overdue ballots are rejected.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday of last week that absentee ballots in Wisconsin’s primary had to be postmarked by April 7, the date of election, but could be counted as long as they were received by April 13. Typically, absentee ballots in Wisconsin must be received on or by Election Day to count, making the decision a victory for DEMOCRATS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-absentee-ballot-deadline-cites-supreme-court-ruling-on-wisconsin-primary/2020/04/15/92694336-7f47-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html
In a supplemental memo filed Tuesday in federal court, lawyers for a trio of plaintiffs argued that the high court’s ruling bolsters their complaint that requiring absentee ballots to be returned — rather than postmarked — on or by Election Day leads to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters when their overdue ballots are rejected.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday of last week that absentee ballots in Wisconsin’s primary had to be postmarked by April 7, the date of election, but could be counted as long as they were received by April 13. Typically, absentee ballots in Wisconsin must be received on or by Election Day to count, making the decision a victory for DEMOCRATS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-lawsuit-challenging-arizona-absentee-ballot-deadline-cites-supreme-court-ruling-on-wisconsin-primary/2020/04/15/92694336-7f47-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html
No doubt you truly believe you are correct despite the numerous instances where I proved otherwise. That's fine. As exemplified in your previous post, you need the self-assurance:
What is "thus time"? It should be "this time".
You’re wearing me out, Legion.
Whether it was a narrow victory is not the point.
It was an attempt to change the requirements of the voting law.
The procedurals in the voting law were changed. The Supreme Court said no-no. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled makes if a Constitutional matter.
Ya esta.
It wasn't a victory at all, Earl. DEMOCRATS got to count all the ballots except the ones postmarked after Election Day, and they won the race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court as a result. That was an expansion of the existing law regarding mail ballot eligibility in Wisconsin.
DEMOCRATS are already using the decision to challenge the existing law in Arizona.
The Supreme Court rules on many matters that are not a question of constitutionality and this was one.
So now you're backing down on your claim that Trump is really Bernie.
No. I'm insinuating you have no positions on ANYTHING and just mimic whatever Fox News tells you to believe.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Adjourn does not mean dissolve.
Trump voters are the rebels. We rejected the fucking repub establishment in the 2016 primaries..
You dickless Dems nominated status quo Dementia Joe.
I have no problem with the US operating as a 'Corporate State' for the good of the Citizens.
You're the pretend 'puritan' that believes in the mythical 'Free Enterprise' system ... with all the Regulation, Quotas, Tariffs, Tax subsidies, etc.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Well, you're wrong. My op is a direct quote from the President.
... not some cropped and edited CNN commie propaganda.
Wasn’t that the point, not to count votes postmarked after Election Day?
Those mail in ballots postmarked before Election Day should be counted...no expansion.
No, Jacky...only in case of a national emergency...people dying. Do you want people to die?
The free enterprise system is real...no myth involved.
Adjourn does not mean dissolve.
Trump voters are the rebels. We rejected the fucking repub establishment in the 2016 primaries..
You dickless Dems nominated status quo Dementia Joe.
It's a step in that direction and not the first time Trump has declared powers for himself that do not exist. In fact, it's the second time in week he's done so.
Yeah, sure. Think of yourself as a rebel seeking to destroy the Constitution. You're still going to have a fight on your hands and it won't be a bunch of LWers carrying flowers and wearing pink pussy hats. It will more closely resemble Texas Rangers taking down rampaging Comanches. Everyone I know supports the Constitution over a self-declared authoritarian.
I'm not a Democrat and have never voted Democrat. The fact you are compelled to lie is proof you are a scumbag who deserves to go down in the first volley of a civil war against those supporting Trump over the Constitution of the United States. I know many people who'd like to make that happen.