Liberal Forum

Huey » 21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am

What were you just saying to me on earlier?  Lmao!

Staaaaaaaaalky!

Post my words...
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:06 am

Staaaaaaaaalky!

Post my words...

And away he goes….
 
 

Huey » 21 Dec 2023, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:07 am

And away he goes….

Your rule...
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am

Not interested in more of your uninformed streamofbullzeet...

Of course you're not!  How interested would ANYONE be after getting their *** so royally kicked?

Here, keep this on hand.
No doubt you'll need it now more than ever!


 

Cedar » 21 Dec 2023, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 9:10 am

Who was the head of the US government on January 6th 2021?

who was leaving?

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:50 am

who was leaving?

That was what Congress was debating at the time of the riot. No one had certified Joe Biden as President yet.
 

R.Suave » 19 Dec 2023, 8:39 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Dec 2023, 8:39 pm

What control does the WH exercise over the Supreme Court in Colorado?

.
More important...what control does a state have over a federal election other than more ultraliberal yamming ?
 

MackTheFinger » 21 Dec 2023, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:29 am

.
More important...what control does a state have over a federal election other than more ultraliberal yamming ?

Because each state regulates its election process..

Nod.
 

Under Construction !
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:37 am

Because each state regulates its election process..
 

Read this and get back to me...I don't feel like reading it all.  I deleted a few irrelevant sentences to get under the word limit.

ArtI.S4.C1.1.1.1.1 Role of the States in Regulating Federal Elections 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 chusing Senators. By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, also contemplates the times, places, and manner of holding elections being “prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” subject to alteration by Congress (except as to the place of choosing Senators). However, the Court did not have occasion to address what constitutes regulation by a state “Legislature” for purposes of the Elections Clause until its 2015 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 
There, the Court rejected the Arizona legislature’s challenge to the validity of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) and AIRC’s 2012 map of congressional districts. The Commission had been established by a 2000 ballot initiative, which removed redistricting authority from the legislature and vested it in the AIRC. The legislature asserted that this arrangement violated the Elections Clause because the Clause contemplates regulation by a state “Legislature” and “Legislature” means the state’s representative assembly.  In so finding, the Court noted that the word “Legislature” has been construed in various ways depending upon the constitutional provision in which it is used, and its meaning depends upon the function that the entity denominated as the “Legislature” is called upon to exercise in a specific context. Here, in the context of the Elections Clause, the Court found that the function of the “Legislature” was lawmaking and that this function could be performed by the people of Arizona via an initiative consistent with state law.
The Court also pointed to dictionary definitions from the time of the Framers the Framers’ intent in adopting the Elections Clause; the “harmony” between the initiative process and the Constitution’s “conception of the people as the font of governmental power;”  and the practical consequences of invalidating the Arizona initiative. State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as “embrac[ing] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections ...; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved.” The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections—including federal elections – are fair and honest and orderly.
But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond “protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process,” and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates. Term limits, viewed as serving the dual purposes of “disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause,” crossed this line, as did ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them. “[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”    
 

MackTheFinger » 21 Dec 2023, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:54 am

.
Read this...I don't feel like it.  I deleted a few ilreavent sentences to get under the word limit.

ArtI.S4.C1.1.1.1.1 Role of the States in Regulating Federal Elections 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 chusing Senators. By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, also contemplates the times, places, and manner of holding elections being “prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” subject to alteration by Congress (except as to the place of choosing Senators). However, the Court did not have occasion to address what constitutes regulation by a state “Legislature” for purposes of the Elections Clause until its 2015 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 

There, the Court rejected the Arizona legislature’s challenge to the validity of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) and AIRC’s 2012 map of congressional districts. The Commission had been established by a 2000 ballot initiative, which removed redistricting authority from the legislature and vested it in the AIRC. The legislature asserted that this arrangement violated the Elections Clause because the Clause contemplates regulation by a state “Legislature” and “Legislature” means the state’s representative assembly.  In so finding, the Court noted that the word “Legislature” has been construed in various ways depending upon the constitutional provision in which it is used, and its meaning depends upon the function that the entity denominated as the “Legislature” is called upon to exercise in a specific context. Here, in the context of the Elections Clause, the Court found that the function of the “Legislature” was lawmaking and that this function could be performed by the people of Arizona via an initiative consistent with state law.

The Court also pointed to dictionary definitions from the time of the Framers the Framers’ intent in adopting the Elections Clause; the “harmony” between the initiative process and the Constitution’s “conception of the people as the font of governmental power;”  and the practical consequences of invalidating the Arizona initiative. State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as “embrac[ing] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections ...; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved.” The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections—including federal elections – are fair and honest and orderly.

But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond “protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process,” and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates. Term limits, viewed as serving the dual purposes of “disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause,” crossed this line, as did ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them. “[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.”

I've read far enough....I'm good.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 10:05 am

Not interested in more of your uninformed streamofbullzeet...

Of course you're not interested when it's impossible for you to deny the facts.

Refresh my memory.  Wasn't it YOU that complained about others not answering the questions posed to them?

So, wave that flag with all due humility, moron!



 

Zeets2 » 21 Dec 2023, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:57 am

Of course you're not interested when it's impossible for you to deny the facts.

Refresh my memory.  Wasn't it YOU that complained about others not answering the questions posed to them?

So, wave that flag with all due humility, moron!
 

what facts, Zeet?

You don't know if is 4 or 39, and you have no idea why..


 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:57 am

I've read far enough....I'm good.

.
So what does it say...R U right or wrong ??? (about states regulating federal elections ?)
.
I will read the whole thing later !
 
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 11:37 am

Because each state regulates its election process..

Nod.

So you're fine with actually disenfranchising the millions of CO voters who wanted to vote for Trump, who has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIME, correct?  And you honestly think that this obvious and idiotic move to do so won't be rejected by the US Supreme Court and in turn, actually INCREASE support and votes for Trump, as all the previous indictments and attempts to discredit him have done in the past?

Thanks for solidifying my conviction that there is NOTHING dumber than a liberal!
 

MackTheFinger » 21 Dec 2023, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 12:04 pm

.
So what does it say...R U right or wrong ??? (about states regulating federal elections ?)
.
I will read the whole thing later !

Do you know why no one is crediting Grifty's reasons for calling the Georgia Sec of State?
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm

Not an answer...
Try again..

Should 4 judges decide if a Democrat should be on a ballot?

if the democrat led an insurrection, yes.

Zeets2 » 21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm

So you're fine with actually disenfranchising the millions of CO voters who wanted to vote for Trump, who has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIME, correct?  And you honestly think that this obvious and idiotic move to do so won't be rejected by the US Supreme Court and in turn, actually INCREASE support and votes for Trump, as all the previous indictments and attempts to discredit him have done in the past?

Thanks for solidifying my conviction that there is NOTHING dumber than a liberal!

If Grifty failed to follow the rules and disqualified himself, Grifty Cultists need to ask themselves serious questions.

who has NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANY CRIME

Irrelevant.
 

Z09 » 21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 12:05 pm

Not an answer...
Try again..

Should 4 judges decide if a Democrat should be on a ballot?

You have questions to answer, Hole.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 12:00 pm

what facts, Zeet?

You don't know if is 4 or 39, and you have no idea why..

Start with the FACT that every American is innocent until proven guilty.
Then go the the FACT that under the 6th Amendment, he must be confronted with witnesses against him and be provided with the opportunity to supply his own witnesses in his defense.  How about the FACT that under the 14th Amendment, no state shall make or enforce ANY law (as Colorado has done) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?

On a side note, it's always great to see ignorant liberals like yourself who have jumped with glee at each attempt to criminalize anything that Trump has done, only to have their hopes dashed and be completely crushed with dismay when their failed efforts have worked against them and have actually INCREASED the amount of support Trump has always gained!

My guess is that we'll soon see you out on a ledge somewhere when the Supreme Court does it to you again in the coming weeks.