Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 397
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 281
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70817
biomed163522
Yssup Rider61171
gman4453310
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48773
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43033
The_Waco_Kid37301
CryptKicker37225
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-22-2020, 10:19 PM   #1
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default interesting lawsuit coming out of PA

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...y-mail-n283630

looks like they're saying PA's law, Act 77 is unconstitutional. they're saying it did not follow the procedure as described in the states constitutions; section 14. it was a constitutional amendment that wasn't properly voted on.

this is an interesting twist.


Filed In Pennsylvania State Court by Pennsylvania GOP Challenging Legality of Vote-By-Mail
By Shipwreckedcrew | Nov 22, 2020 5:45 PM ET

Yesterday several Pennsylvania Republican Party officials and individual Republican voters filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that the legislation which adopted “no excuse” eligibility for absentee voting was an illegitimate amendment of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

The Plaintiffs are Mike Kelly, a GOP member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the extreme northwest corner of Pennsylvania; Sean Parnell, a GOP politician who lost his race for the US House in a suburban Pittsburg District; Wanda Logan, a GOP politician who lost her race for Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia County; and five other individual voters from various Pennsylvania counties. The defendants are the State of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Tom Wolfe, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Katherine Boockvar, the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylania Legislature passed, and Gov. Wolf signed, Act 77 which included amendments to Pennsylvania election laws — including a provision that expanded the availability of absentee voting on a “no excuse” basis.

Here is the issue as presented by the Complaint — the Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth the basis upon which voters (“electors”) may cast an absentee ballot, and Act 77 did not “amend” the State Constitution as has been done in the past when changes were made to the Absentee Ballot provisions. Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution Reads:
§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which... qualified electors who... are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability... may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.
The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967. Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution: 1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.

Act 77 did not follow the procedure for amending the Pennsylvania State Constitution as set forth in the Pennsylvania State Constitution. That process requires that such proposed Amendments pass both houses of the Pennsylvania Assembly by majority vote in two consecutive legislative sessions. The provisions of the proposed Amendment must then be published for three months in two newspapers in each county. Finally, the provisions must be approved by a majority of electors in the next general election.

Recognizing that there was no basis in the Constitution to support “no excuse” mail-in balloting, at the same time the Pennsylvania Legislature approved Act 77, it also initiated the process for Amending Sec. 14 of the Constitution to accomplish that purpose. However, neither Act 77 nor the simultaneously proposed amendment were ever passed by a majority vote of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, and neither was ever approved by a majority of voters in Pennsylvania in a general election.

The first bill proposing a “no excuse” absentee voting amendment to Section 14 was introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate in January 2019 — more than one year before the COVID-19 pandemic. It was introduced as a Joint Resolution for the purpose of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution. This bill passed in October 2019, and was sent to the Pennsylvania House.

That Senate bill was amended by the House, and both the Senate and the House passed the amended version on April 29, 2020 – after the COVID-19 pandemic had begun. But before a proposed Constitutional Amendment can be submitted for approval by the voters, it must be passed by both houses of the Assembly in two consecutive sessions — and that has not happened. Only after that happens can it be placed on the ballot of a general election for approval by the voters.

The text of the proposed amendment struck out the four enumerated grounds for absentee voting and added a sentence at the end stating that no law passed pursuant to that provision could require a voter to be personally present at a voting location.

At the same time the first Senate bill was approved in October 2019, both houses of the Assembly adopted Act 77, and Gov. Wolf signed it into law. The State officials then proceeded to carry out the provisions of Act 77 as if they were not an amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution at all, and then followed those procedures in the recently completed general election — procedures which violated the current Pennsylvania Constitution.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from the Court that Act 77 was void from the outset to the extent it was used by the State to violate the Pennsylvania Constitutional limitations on absentee voting, and ballots cast in reliance on Act 77 are invalid.

There are some additional nuances to the argument made in the complaint, but I’ll reserve commenting on those until we see what Court proceedings result in the days ahead.

If you think the complaining about the remedy sought by the Trump campaign in the federal case was wild, wait until the Democrats and media start screaming about this case if it generates any traction.
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 11-22-2020, 10:20 PM   #2
matchingmole
Valued Poster
 
matchingmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2009
Location: Only minutes from downtown
Posts: 7,183
Encounters: 30
Default

darn close to interesting....but not really interesting
matchingmole is offline   Quote
Old 11-22-2020, 10:28 PM   #3
1blackman1
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Nov 16, 2013
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 6,110
Encounters: 41
Default

Once again. You really are the guy PT Barnum was referring to.
1blackman1 is online now   Quote
Old 11-22-2020, 10:49 PM   #4
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Redstate by "shipwreckedcrew"?

HAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm View Post
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...y-mail-n283630

looks like they're saying PA's law, Act 77 is unconstitutional. they're saying it did not follow the procedure as described in the states constitutions; section 14. it was a constitutional amendment that wasn't properly voted on.

this is an interesting twist.


Filed In Pennsylvania State Court by Pennsylvania GOP Challenging Legality of Vote-By-Mail
By Shipwreckedcrew | Nov 22, 2020 5:45 PM ET

Yesterday several Pennsylvania Republican Party officials and individual Republican voters filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief based on a claim that the legislation which adopted “no excuse” eligibility for absentee voting was an illegitimate amendment of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.

The Plaintiffs are Mike Kelly, a GOP member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the extreme northwest corner of Pennsylvania; Sean Parnell, a GOP politician who lost his race for the US House in a suburban Pittsburg District; Wanda Logan, a GOP politician who lost her race for Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia County; and five other individual voters from various Pennsylvania counties. The defendants are the State of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Tom Wolfe, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and Katherine Boockvar, the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylania Legislature passed, and Gov. Wolf signed, Act 77 which included amendments to Pennsylvania election laws — including a provision that expanded the availability of absentee voting on a “no excuse” basis.

Here is the issue as presented by the Complaint — the Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth the basis upon which voters (“electors”) may cast an absentee ballot, and Act 77 did not “amend” the State Constitution as has been done in the past when changes were made to the Absentee Ballot provisions. Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution Reads:
§ 14. Absentee voting.
(a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which... qualified electors who... are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability... may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.
The Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania State Constitution requires in-person voting, and the only recognized exception to this requirement is the options reflected in Sec. 14, which were added to the Constitution via the accepted Amendment process in 1967. Sec. 14 sets forth four specific bases for a qualified voter to cast an absentee vote under the Constitution: 1) the voter will be absent from their municipality because duties, occupation, or business needs require them to be elsewhere; 2) illness or physical disability; 3) observance of a religious holiday, and 4) due to status as a county worker.

Act 77 did not follow the procedure for amending the Pennsylvania State Constitution as set forth in the Pennsylvania State Constitution. That process requires that such proposed Amendments pass both houses of the Pennsylvania Assembly by majority vote in two consecutive legislative sessions. The provisions of the proposed Amendment must then be published for three months in two newspapers in each county. Finally, the provisions must be approved by a majority of electors in the next general election.

Recognizing that there was no basis in the Constitution to support “no excuse” mail-in balloting, at the same time the Pennsylvania Legislature approved Act 77, it also initiated the process for Amending Sec. 14 of the Constitution to accomplish that purpose. However, neither Act 77 nor the simultaneously proposed amendment were ever passed by a majority vote of the Legislature in two consecutive sessions, and neither was ever approved by a majority of voters in Pennsylvania in a general election.

The first bill proposing a “no excuse” absentee voting amendment to Section 14 was introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate in January 2019 — more than one year before the COVID-19 pandemic. It was introduced as a Joint Resolution for the purpose of amending the Pennsylvania Constitution. This bill passed in October 2019, and was sent to the Pennsylvania House.

That Senate bill was amended by the House, and both the Senate and the House passed the amended version on April 29, 2020 – after the COVID-19 pandemic had begun. But before a proposed Constitutional Amendment can be submitted for approval by the voters, it must be passed by both houses of the Assembly in two consecutive sessions — and that has not happened. Only after that happens can it be placed on the ballot of a general election for approval by the voters.

The text of the proposed amendment struck out the four enumerated grounds for absentee voting and added a sentence at the end stating that no law passed pursuant to that provision could require a voter to be personally present at a voting location.

At the same time the first Senate bill was approved in October 2019, both houses of the Assembly adopted Act 77, and Gov. Wolf signed it into law. The State officials then proceeded to carry out the provisions of Act 77 as if they were not an amendment of the Pennsylvania Constitution at all, and then followed those procedures in the recently completed general election — procedures which violated the current Pennsylvania Constitution.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from the Court that Act 77 was void from the outset to the extent it was used by the State to violate the Pennsylvania Constitutional limitations on absentee voting, and ballots cast in reliance on Act 77 are invalid.

There are some additional nuances to the argument made in the complaint, but I’ll reserve commenting on those until we see what Court proceedings result in the days ahead.

If you think the complaining about the remedy sought by the Trump campaign in the federal case was wild, wait until the Democrats and media start screaming about this case if it generates any traction.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Old 11-22-2020, 11:02 PM   #5
goodman0422
Valued Poster
 
goodman0422's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 21, 2015
Location: Ask me
Posts: 984
Encounters: 12
Default

Interesting that it was introduced in January 2019. Almost like there was a plan in motion long before most people had heard of a coronavirus
goodman0422 is offline   Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 12:31 AM   #6
Little Monster
Valued Poster
 
Little Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 18, 2010
Location: Southwest Austin
Posts: 5,882
Encounters: 109
Default

Trump lost, get over it...
Little Monster is offline   Quote
Old 11-23-2020, 10:10 AM   #7
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman View Post
Redstate by "shipwreckedcrew"?

HAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA
you have a problem with anonymous writers using an alias, even stupid aliases?
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved