|
Politics Forum
|
List All Forums | About |
message board home
Next
11/5/2020 8:58:16 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress Subject: Post-election predictions Msg# 1103499
|
||||||
|
It appears to me the Roberts Court had no business sticking their noses into what is clearly a matter owned solely by state legislatures.
Your wording "what is clearly" needs some basis for how you arrived at that, before we could hope to be discussing any exceptions. I'd suggest neither of us has the "scholarly accomplishments" to opine with authority. But --- when we're talking about federal elections, this could be the portal for opening federal jurisdiction. Including possible federal law enforcement forces being deployed. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: justices need scholarly accomplishments Article II, Sec I, Clause 2 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. Tom, It would benefit us all if Justices were scholarly accomplished in the predominant language of our nation. It appears to me the Roberts Court had no business sticking their noses into what is clearly a matter owned solely by state legislatures. It doesn't surprise me, however; for 200+ years they've been twisting themselves in knots deciphering what was meant by 'may' and 'shall.' I think the default is to assume the first use applies to those that follow. That is to say, in the above clause, 'may' defaults to 'shall.' Don't take me too seriously, Tom. We're all hunkered-down and having fun Bob |
when and where we can.