Am I correct, the Trumper’s now quietly admit

Obviously YOU don't. Now run along and go do another "DNC." :laugh:
Notice it does NOT say the court get to change election laws.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

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.
 
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

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.


These swing states had DEMOCRAT controlled courts that changed voter laws
Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Courts lack the Constitutional authority to change election laws. Therefore the 2020 election was not legitimate.
The supreme court of any state reviews all laws. That’s part of what the framers knew when they wrote the Constitution.

It’s part of a legislature passing a law. Are you dumb?
 
The supreme court of any state reviews all laws. That’s part of what the framers knew when they wrote the Constitution.

It’s part of a legislature passing a law. Are you dumb?
So when did the legislatures of those swing states write election laws and when did their Supreme Courts OK those laws? BEFORE or AFTER the lower courts unilaterally changed election laws. I'd ask if you are dumb but I already know you are.
 
Notice it does NOT say the court get to change election laws.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

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.
All laws passed by legislators, are reviewable by the Supreme Court of the state. That’s part of the legislative process. The framers knew that when they wrote the constitution. That’s why tge RNC nor Trump took that case to the Supreme Court, they knew it was a loser. They also knew their loser followers would gobble up such silly claims.

Are you suggesting that a state legislator could say, they are suspending elections, and will choose for themselves who gets their electoral votes, and that would not be reviewable by any court?

I really don’t think you are this dumb, but your emotions seem to override your intellect.
 
Last edited:
How come you think it is OK for states to violate the Constitution on who can legally change voting laws?
^^^
Meth-induced delusions. Regurgitates claims but never supplies evidence.

Who really believes Ms. Fat Lame was anything more than a doctor's drug dealer?
 
So when did the legislatures of those swing states write election laws and when did their Supreme Courts OK those laws? BEFORE or AFTER the lower courts unilaterally changed election laws. I'd ask if you are dumb but I already know you are.
Since when does the supreme court of every state review every law that's passed?
 
No voter fraud in Fulton County. Even Trump has stopped making those claims. You are a naïve kook.

Maybe you should try and get some more education
Since no one has to prove who they are when they vote there isn't any way to know who is voting
 
All laws passed by legislators, are reviewable by the Supreme Court of the state. That’s part of the legislative process. The framers knew that when they wrote the constitution. That’s why tge RNC nor Trump took that case to the Supreme Court, they knew it was a loser. They also knew their loser followers would gobble up such silly claims.
Courts cannot change election law as happened in Pennsylvania.
Are you suggesting that a state legislator could say, they are suspending elections, and will choose for themselves who gets their electoral votes, and that would not be reviewable by any court?
That would be outside of the scop of Constitutional authority. Not the same as changing election law.

Bottom line is, there's only one reason Democrats would fight so hard against free and fair elections.
 
Courts cannot change election law as happened in Pennsylvania.

That would be outside of the scop of Constitutional authority. Not the same as changing election law.

Bottom line is, there's only one reason Democrats would fight so hard against free and fair elections.
So why didn’t the RNC or Trump take this to the Supreme Court?

They knew it was a loser, and wanted to keep the argument alive for Kooks like you.
 
Back
Top