|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319 |
Here is a dated (4 Dec 2020) article that was well worth my time to read. The author takes a view I have not yet heard. Very intersting. https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/...vent-seen-the-key-supporting-effort-yet/
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792 |
You're another Never-Trump bitch. FO.
Well that’s quite the argument on the point of the post. Texas lacks standing to meddle in the internal affairs of four other states. Maybe I’m wrong but we shall see.
Conrad101st
1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91)
3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,951
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,951 |
Update: Texas is joined in this suit by Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,225
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,225 |
So, if a nice constitutionally conservative family with a business wanted to move from PA to Texas, where should we look to go? 😁
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 5,240
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 5,240 |
Update: Texas is joined in this suit by Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Do you have a source for this info?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,951
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,951 |
It's because the Texas case has the Pennsylvania case built in. The Supreme Court is taking that case. Anybody who thinks this is a win for Biden is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792 |
That’s possible. Interesting but good point Morewood.
Conrad101st
1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91)
3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,554 |
We are in business folks! Texas SC challengeNo. 22O155 Title: Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al. Docketed: December 8, 2020 Lower Ct: DATE PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS Dec 07 2020 Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed. Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of Service Dec 07 2020 Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas. Main Document Dec 07 2020 Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas. Main DocumentProof of ServiceOther NAME ADDRESS PHONE Attorneys for Plaintiff Ken Paxton Counsel of Record Attorney General of Texas P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, TX 78711-2548 kenneth.paxton  oag.texas.gov 512-936-1414 Party name: State of Texas
That's ok, I'll ass shoot a dink.
Steelhead
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,729
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,729 |
Heard this on Rush on the way home from UPS...
wasn't aware of it, But Yeah Texas... I wish Oregon could dump Potlandia and Texas just take over the rest of the state...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,851
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,851 |
I question the logic of the lawsuit on one simple thought; where is Texas’ “standing” to challenge the internal affairs of another state. My bet is SC tell Texas “Nice try hombre but no bueno. “ Meanwhile in other news the Supreme Court told Pennsylvania republicans to pound sand. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block certification of the commonwealth's election results, delivering a near fatal blow to the GOP's long-shot bid to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's victory.” https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-trump-biden/index.htmlCompletely and totally WRONG!! You obviously know nothing about the US Constitution, or like most leftist idiots, don't care about it. If a Federal election is fraudulent or unconstitutional, the result affects ALL STATES. Therefore, TX and any other State which chooses to bring a case against a State which has NOT acted in accordance with the US Constitution, has standing before SCOTUS. Thus the current case as Sen. Cruz has pointed out has to be decided by SCOTUS. The remedy they might apply is unpredictable. BTW if the case is not decided by SCOTUS before Jan. 20 or if it's thrown to the Federal Legislature and they can't elect POTUS before Inauguration, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi) becomes POTUS until there is a definitive resolution. Ther o=is no Constitutional provision for the Inauguration to be delayed.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
Deus vult!
Rhodesians all now
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319 |
It's because the Texas case has the Pennsylvania case built in. The Supreme Court is taking that case. Anybody who thinks this is a win for Biden is an idiot. Exactamundo. SCOTUS does not want to plow the landscape yet, with onesies and twosies, dance with me susie. The Texas case will be a single case that will fix every state named in the lawsuit, and allow the state legislatures to do the heavy lifting of selecting Electoral College electors, for "The People" of each several state. It will also officially notify the Democrat criminals that election fraud will not stand in the future, setting case precedent for generations to come. After Trump is sworn in, his new Attorney General (Sidney Powell) can pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators of this fraud. The Supreme Court and state legislatures, working in tandem, have an opportunity to save the Republic, and once again prove the God guided genius of our Founding Fathers who made America a truly Exceptional, and one of a kind free country.
"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,297
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,297 |
Louisiana just joined with Texas in this law suit. Need more. I bet DeSantis will bring Florida on board. This is how it begins. A lot of Americans are going to want a part of this. I would think many knew this was coming and waiting. When can we call it a party.
Ideas are far more powerful than guns, We dont let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas. "Joseph Stalin"
He who has braved youths dizzy heat dreads not the frost of age.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,554 |
Update: Texas is joined in this suit by Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota. Where are you hearing this?
That's ok, I'll ass shoot a dink.
Steelhead
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792 |
Completely and totally WRONG!!
You obviously know nothing about the US Constitution, or like most leftist idiots, don't care about it. If a Federal election is fraudulent or unconstitutional, the result affects ALL STATES. Therefore, TX and any other State which chooses to bring a case against a State which has NOT acted in accordance with the US Constitution, has standing before SCOTUS.
I would be surprised if they take it. However, I admit to having been wrong before so I guess we shall see. I always have doubts about any court doing anything one way or the other.
Conrad101st
1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91)
3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,368
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,368 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,792 |
Conrad101st
1/503 Inf., 2nd ID (90-91)
3/327 Inf., 101st ABN (91-92)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,039
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,039 |
I question the logic of the lawsuit Lol, you have not one clue what logic is, that's Irony.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
I question the logic of the lawsuit Lol, you have not one clue what logic is, that's Irony. connie is just another closet commie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 |
Sen Ted Cruz yesterday, volunteered to argue the case before the Supremes He has to, otherwise Ken Paxton will beat his ass for Senate in the primary.
...Actually Sycamore, you are sort of right....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 |
And the question remains the same; Will any court take on a decision that nullifies the elections on those states?
What are the odds??????????????????????? 30/70?
$64 million dollar Q.
MM Well, they are on notice. The reason this case is very significant is because it sets the stage for articles of secession or a list of grievances. Texas is telling the court that they don’t think that the election is legitimate and it is giving the court an out to set aside the popular election on very narrow constitutional grounds. If the court refuses to set it aside, then it is essentially asking Texas and all these other states to abide by an election they do not think is legitimate. So, what is the incentive for Texas or any other state to remain in a union where illegitimate elections become the norm? This suit fights fire with fire. The court may not want to be seen as deciding an election. On the other hand, if it refuses to do anything, it is lighting the fuse of secession. The middle ground and easy way out for the court, and the path asked for in the complaint, is to simply let the legislatures decide this one. It’s constitutional and the court doesn’t even have to decide if fraud occurred. It can simply agree with Texas and argue that the laws weren’t followed. Constitutional crises averted for now. The incentive for Texas not to leave the Union is to not become the northernmost state in Mexico.
...Actually Sycamore, you are sort of right....
|
|
|
|
|
595 members (2500HD, 007FJ, 16penny, 10gaugemag, 1lessdog, 10Glocks, 57 invisible),
2,204
guests, and
1,115
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,201
Posts18,466,042
Members73,925
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
