There is no tape of the senate approving 2020 election. why not?

[Walt]

Seven States never chose any electors.

And yet all states chose Electors, those Electors voted, the votes were certified, and the votes were sent into Congress. How did they do all that without choosing any Electors?

Could it be you just do not like the Electors they chose?

 

[Supposn]

AssHatZombie, are you contending that 7 of USA's states are not represented within USA's Electoral College? Please provide a credible link to what you contend is a fact.

In accordance with the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final determiner of what is or isn't constitutional.

In response to my not knowing what you meant when you posted “election rules were changed unconstitutionally” you respond, “this is just an argument of the Stone and an RQAA. This question has already been answered numerous times”.
Your response is inexplicit. What's a “Stone and an RQAA”, and why do you contend that your “Stone and an RQAA” is a credible factor or even germane to this discussion?

You haven't explained or provided any credible link regarding your statement, “Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess”.

I do attempt to be respectful to others and I don't believe that I've addressed anyone to a lesser extent of respect than has been their treatment to me. On the contrary, I try to be more than that respectful to others. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie, are you contending that 7 of USA's states are not represented within USA's Electoral College? Please provide a credible link to what you contend is a fact.

In accordance with the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final determiner of what is or isn't constitutional.

In response to my not knowing what you meant when you posted “election rules were changed unconstitutionally” you respond, “this is just an argument of the Stone and an RQAA. This question has already been answered numerous times”.
Your response is inexplicit. What's a “Stone and an RQAA”, and why do you contend that your “Stone and an RQAA” is a credible factor or even germane to this discussion?

You haven't explained or provided any credible link regarding your statement, “Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess”.

I do attempt to be respectful to others and I don't believe that I've addressed anyone to a lesser extent of respect than has been their treatment to me. On the contrary, I try to be more than that respectful to others. Respectfully, Supposn

appeal to authority fallacy.

obviously rules were changed without state LEGISLATIVE approval.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie, are you contending that 7 of USA's states are not represented within USA's Electoral College? Please provide a credible link to what you contend is a fact.

In accordance with the U.S Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final determiner of what is or isn't constitutional.

In response to my not knowing what you meant when you posted “election rules were changed unconstitutionally” you respond, “this is just an argument of the Stone and an RQAA. This question has already been answered numerous times”.
Your response is inexplicit. What's a “Stone and an RQAA”, and why do you contend that your “Stone and an RQAA” is a credible factor or even germane to this discussion?

You haven't explained or provided any credible link regarding your statement, “Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess”.

I do attempt to be respectful to others and I don't believe that I've addressed anyone to a lesser extent of respect than has been their treatment to me. On the contrary, I try to be more than that respectful to others. Respectfully, Supposn

appeal to authority fallacy.

obviously rules were changed without state LEGISLATIVE approval.

 

[Supposn]

appeal to authority fallacy.

obviously rules were changed without state LEGISLATIVE approval.

AssHatZombie, authoritative is very good, but credible is lesser and a lower bar to hurdle over; you offer no credible logical reasons or links supporting your posted statements.
I believe federal law is the legally superior law applicable to elections for federal offices. Federal election rules do not require the states' approvals. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie, authoritative is very good, but credible is lesser and a lower bar to hurdle over; you offer no credible logical reasons or links supporting your posted statements.
I believe federal law is the legally superior law applicable to elections for federal offices. Federal election rules do not require the states' approvals. Respectfully, Supposn

your assertions are prima facie dismissed.

 

[Gondwanaland]

And if it's too "dangerous" to tape,

it's too dangerous to vote.

Election rules were changed unconstitutionally.
The result should be set aside prima facie.
Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess without debating objections or actually voting.
There is no tape of the vote.

Yes, there is:

Lying doesn't help you look any better.

 

[Walt]

Yes, there is:

Lying doesn't help you look any better.

No amount of evidence will ever convince him.

 

[Supposn]

Supposn posted:
"AssHatZombie, authoritative is very good, but credible is lesser and a lower bar to hurdle over; you offer no credible logical reasons or links supporting your posted statements.
I believe federal law is the legally superior law applicable to elections for federal offices. Federal election rules do not require the states' approvals ... "

your assertions are prima facie dismissed.

AssHatZombie, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

In any case where the laws of a state conflict with duly past and enacted federal laws and regulations, federal law's the supreme law. Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court is the final judge of what is or isn't constitutional. That's the law regardless if you do or do not respect article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Granule]

And if it's too "dangerous" to tape,

it's too dangerous to vote.

Election rules were changed unconstitutionally.
The result should be set aside prima facie.
Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess without debating objections or actually voting.
There is no tape of the vote.

I just started looking and haven't found anything.

I did find this though:

How in the hell do we let these assholes get away with their shit year after year?

 

[Flash]

AssHatZombie,

Do you now believe the Senate confirmation of the electoral vote was filmed since several of us posted C-SPAN video of those events?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie,

Do you now believe the Senate confirmation of the electoral vote was filmed since several of us posted C-SPAN video of those events?

Im on the fence.

I didn't see the tape of the debating of the objections.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Supposn posted:
"AssHatZombie, authoritative is very good, but credible is lesser and a lower bar to hurdle over; you offer no credible logical reasons or links supporting your posted statements.
I believe federal law is the legally superior law applicable to elections for federal offices. Federal election rules do not require the states' approvals ... "
AssHatZombie, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

In any case where the laws of a state conflict with duly past and enacted federal laws and regulations, federal law's the supreme law. Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court is the final judge of what is or isn't constitutional. That's the law regardless if you do or do not respect article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

yes. the whole system runs on the appeal to authority fallacy in the end.

 

[Into the Night]

Supposn posted:
"AssHatZombie, authoritative is very good, but credible is lesser and a lower bar to hurdle over; you offer no credible logical reasons or links supporting your posted statements.
I believe federal law is the legally superior law applicable to elections for federal offices. Federal election rules do not require the states' approvals ... "

WRONG. Federal law MUST conform to the Constitution of the United States. States have authority over all other areas of law. See Article I and the 9th and 10th amendments.

AssHatZombie, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

In any case where the laws of a state conflict with duly past and enacted federal laws and regulations, federal law's the supreme law.

WRONG. Only laws, powers, and authorities that the Constitution of the United specifically authorizes can override State law. See Article I and VI, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court is the final judge of what is or isn't constitutional.

WRONG. The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution. See Article III. It MUST declare any unconstitutional law unconstitutional. It MUST declare any constitutional law constitutional. STATES own the Constitution of the United States. They created it. They ordained it to power. They are the only ones that can change it. They are the only ones that can interpret it. They are the only ones that can destroy it (and thus dissolve the federal government, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT).

That's the law regardless if you do or do not respect article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

WRONG. See Articles I, III, VI, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

 

[Into the Night]

AssHatZombie,

Do you now believe the Senate confirmation of the electoral vote was filmed since several of us posted C-SPAN video of those events?

No. It was never filmed. There was no electoral vote. Seven States never chose any electoral members.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No. It was never filmed. There was no electoral vote. Seven States never chose any electoral members.

yeah. what he said.

 

[Supposn]

... Federal law MUST conform to the Constitution of the United States. States have authority over all other areas of law. See Article I and the 9th and 10th amendments.
... Only laws, powers, and authorities that the Constitution of the United specifically authorizes can override State law. See Article I and VI, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

... See Articles I, III, VI, and the 9th and 10th amendments.

... The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Constitution. See Article III. It MUST declare any unconstitutional law unconstitutional. It MUST declare any constitutional law constitutional. STATES own the Constitution of the United States. They created it. They ordained it to power. They are the only ones that can change it. They are the only ones that can interpret it. They are the only ones that can destroy it (and thus dissolve the federal government, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT).

Into the Night, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

In accordance to the United States Constitution, if federal courts determine a federal law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation is then no longer in effect. Otherwise in all other cases, federal law is the law that's applied if state's laws are contrary to the federal law. United States laws and regulation are by definition “authorized”. Enacting federal laws and regulation does not require any state's “permission”.

Please quote those precise words of the constitution and explain why you contend those specific words take precedent over the the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6 .

No ones' contended our Supreme court has "authority over the Constitution", but it is as you posted, the absolutely final interpreter of the constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Into the Night, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

In accordance to the United States Constitution, if federal courts determine a federal law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation is then no longer in effect. Otherwise in all other cases, federal law is the law that's applied if state's laws are contrary to the federal law. United States laws and regulation are by definition “authorized”. Enacting federal laws and regulation does not require any state's “permission”.

Please quote those precise words of the constitution and explain why you contend those specific words take precedent over the the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6 .

No ones' contended our Supreme court has "authority over the Constitution", but it is as you posted, the absolutely final interpreter of the constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

facts and reality exist outside a judge's or court's determination.


then there's also this.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Supposn]

facts and reality exist outside a judge's or court's determination.
then there's also this.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AssHatZombie. yes that's true and as you quted my post, "In accordance to the United States Constitution, if federal courts determine a federal law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation is then no longer in effect.

OTHERWISE IN ALL OTHER CASES, federal law is the law that's applied if state's laws are contrary to the federal law. United States laws and regulation are by definition “authorized”. Enacting federal laws and regulation does not require any state's “permission”.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie. yes that's true and as you quted my post, "In accordance to the United States Constitution, if federal courts determine a federal law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation is then no longer in effect.

OTHERWISE IN ALL OTHER CASES, federal law is the law that's applied if state's laws are contrary to the federal law. United States laws and regulation are by definition “authorized”. Enacting federal laws and regulation does not require any state's “permission”.
Respectfully, Supposn

so what's going on with sanctuary cities?