|
Politics Forum
|
List All Forums | About |
message board home
Next
11/6/2020 12:55:15 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: President & Congress Subject: Post-election predictions Msg# 1103521
|
||||||
|
Your wording "what is clearly" needs some basis for how you arrived at that, before we could hope to be discussing any exceptions. needs some basis for how you arrived at that, before we could hope to be discussing any exceptions.
If the framers wanted the courts to have a roll in a State's Right to conduct its own elections, I should think a Constitutional blurb or two would speak to their wishes. Nothing in A2.1.2 can be construed as to give the Supremes a roll in the process unless there's a constitutional aspect involved with the issue. As far as I know, infractions are localized with some bellyaching about federal laws being broken. I believe laws are being broken but I'm not sure how far reaching they are, e.g. local laws, state laws, fed laws or simply misunderstood rule changes. Your wording "what is clearly" needs some basis for how you arrived at that, before we could hope to be discussing any exceptions. Call me presumptuous but I believe I understand what the Article spells out. It doesn't appear ambiguous to me. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: 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. |
