| 12 November A.D. 2016 [GMT] |
Democratic party coup is facially incompetent |
|
MARYLAND wants to change the rules after the game is lost. https://conservativedailypost.
3 USCS § 8. Manner of voting
The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution. § 15. Counting electoral votes in CongressWhat we have here are the means by which the "republican"-controlled congress can allow or disallow any STATE's electoral vote. Thus, a STATE that announces its vote as dependent not on the party winning that STATE's vote but rather on winning the "popular vote" is subject to objection and disqualification. This author expects, though, that the problem runs much deeper, legally speaking. The "electors" selected in those STATEs would have either to abide by the oaths taken at the time the then-existing threshold qualifications were applied, i.e., the qualifications set at the time of the primaries, which oaths would recognize the electoral perspective, or to be treated as disqualified. It'd be some study into "party" by-laws and STATE statutes to determine how the "electors" would be replaced. Since the rules would have changed mid-game/stream, there's some question as to whether the people would be involved in the re-selection process or whether the "party" would just act without "popular" participation. Where the STATE and "the party" act in concert to change the rules mid-game/stream without subjecting that proposal to the people in that STATE (presuming the people are the ones relied upon to select the "electors"), there'll then be a "federal question" as to whether that constitutes interfering with agreements, namely the agreements entered into by those intending to qualify initially. That then raises an issue of standing, because the people most likely to object are those who are not directly affiliated with that "party." Although, since we're talking about filling an office that is subject not to STATE law but US law, there may be a basic federal question just because the rules were changed mid-game/stream. It's this sort of "change of position" mid-way that gives rise to some "ancient" (very settled) concepts of "estoppel." The practical upshot for MARYLAND isn't a practical change in the outcome. And, should other STATES for which the "electoral" vote already is "called" for a womam who very likely did die in Sept. 2016, again, the practical change, if such mid-game/stream rule changes are allowed, is none. What changes is what happens four years from now, and, by then, God may have so intervened that the notion of "electoral college" disintegration (at the hands of the communists) will no longer be an issue in anyone's mind. This is just one more way to keep things disrupted through the "end of year spending season." The commercial solution is to spend very little (none where possible) and absolutely not to increase one's debt obligations. Harmon L. Taylor Legal Reality Dallas Texas Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net Legal Reality Email Resource page: http://home.earthlink.net/~ |























