Ceasar
61
Instead of beat em’, join em’…The republicans should just print up more cheating ballots than the dems. Stuff the boxes to the max.
1 Like
dderatz
62
Your post indicates that you don’t have the first idea what you’re talking about. Before the law that you are so ignorantly advocating against, we had no “mail in voting.” There was absentee voting, which you might choose to mail, but mail-in voting was what this bill created - that’s the actual statutory name. The name is not “no excuse” mail in voting; that term is an advocacy position against the law.
johnwk2
63
Instead of getting all bent out of shape, how about reading the OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT, AND THE DISSENTING OPINION which confirms the case is about no-excuse mail-in ballots. In the opinion we find:
.
Doug McLinko (McLinko) has filed an amended petition for review seeking a declaration that Article XIII-D of the Pennsylvania Election Code, 2 added by Act 77, violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and is, therefore, void. Act 77 established that any qualified elector may vote by mail, but McLinko argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires a qualified elector to present her ballot in person at a designated polling place on Election Day, except where she meets one of the constitutional exceptions for absentee voting. See PA.CONST. art. VII, §§1, 14. No excuse mail-in voting cannot be reconciled, McLinko argues, with the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Now, as you were saying?
JWK
dderatz
64
“McLinko argues”. An advocacy statement, as I said. Read the statue, or aren’t you a textualist? See in the law, words matter. In advocacy, apparently not so much.
I don’t. I use it. But I expect one day to find myself cancelled by the system.
DougBH
66
So…is mail in voting a type of absentee voting or a type of voting in person?
This is an excellent point. I think part of it is because we have come to accept to some degree the likelihood that our personal info will be compromised and that we need to use things like two step verification to protect our personal information. I think people who actually take the time to vote believe that their vote matters more than personal info to some degree and the fear of losing the importance of their vote can’t be overcome with a password and a text to confirm their identity. That’s just my 2 cents. I think it’s psychological
zantax
68
Well that and both my credit cards and my bank have my back mostly covered on internet fraud.
1 Like
johnwk2
69
So, you were wrong. Your comment was in error. The case is about no-excuse mail-in ballots.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858
dderatz
70
That’s a good question. The so far successful argument in favor of the law was that it is not “absentee voting,” which is a term defined in the PA Constitution, but a form of advance voting.
In practice, It could be in person, in that the voter had the option of dropping it off at the County Board of Elections or at another designated location. For example, my drop off point was outside the local Magistrate’s office. So far, I have never mailed it, mostly because of how bad mail service has gotten under the current Postal Board and Postmaster General. The law does provide for delivery by mail. So maybe the answer is that it is advance voting with a mail-in option.
What is going on here is a feud between a Supreme Court with a Democratic majority, and a Commonwealth Court with a Republican majority. The statute itself has a jurisdiction stripping provision that Constitutional challenges could only be made by a Kings Bench application directly to the PA Supreme Court. The Commonwealth Court has now twice ignored that, and been reversed once in 2020 (although not exactly on that basis). The argument the Commonwealth Court has offered is that the jurisdiction stripping provision was only applicable for the first few months, during the time that the legislature had imposed a “Statute of Limitations” (which the Commonwealth Court views as a laches, or undue delay rule) on Constitutional claims. The Commonwealth Court is probably correct that you can’t impose a time barrier on Constitutional claims, but they are manipulating the argument to avoid the jurisdiction stripping language.
The correct decision by the PA Supreme Court would be that the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction. If the SCt reaches the merits, then in my opinion, they should hold that this law only sets the time, place and manner of regular voting, and is not an unconstitutional extension of absentee voting.
1 Like
dderatz
71
Quousque tandem abutere, JWK, patientia nostra?
Your statement, as well as most of your posts here, suffer from the rhetorical fallacy of post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.. You have made up your mind and then sought support by stringing together concepts that support it, instead of examine the concepts to reach a conclusion.
There is no concept in PA called “no-excuse mail in voting.” Those words only appear in statements made in an advocacy statement, as quoted above.
2 Likes
johnwk2
72
That question is inconsequential to what the case is about, and what the Majority on the Court ruled. The case is about the constitutionality of the legislature adopting a law allowing for electors to vote using no-excuse mail-in ballots.
Let us try to keep to what the Court’s RULING is about. It makes for a more productive discussion.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
johnwk2
73
The case is not about absentee voting as such. It is about the Pennsylvania Legislature arbitrarily adopting legislation erasing constitutional limits placed on mail-in ballots used for Absentee Voting.
Why have a written constitution approved by the people of Pennsylvania if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
DougBH
74
So…the Democratic Party position is that the Pennsylvania constitution set up elaborate specific instances for allowing voting other than in person, such as business that requires them to be elsewhere, or because they have government duties that won’t allow them to vote in person…and yet all that would be necessary is for them to mail in their ballot on a whim. Seems like a meaningless provision to list the requirements for absentee voting, doesn’t it?
4 Likes
johnwk2
75
Only the dishonest, ignorant and tyrants would assert the adoption of such restrictions in a written constitution are meaningless.
The irrefutable fact is the people of Pennsylvania specifically put those restriction into their Constitution under ABSENTEE VOTING to intentionally limit the use of such ballots. And that is why the judge in overturning no-excuse mail-in ballots wrote the following:
“No-excuse mail-in voting makes the exercise of the franchise more convenient and has been used four times in the history of Pennsylvania. Approximately 1.38 million voters have expressed their interest in voting by mail permanently. If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can “be placed upon our statute books.” Lancaster City, 126 A. at 201. For these reasons, we grant summary relief to McLinko and declare that Act 77 violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. VII, §1. We deny the Acting Secretary’s application for summary relief on the procedural and substantive grounds proffered therein.”
Seems quite clear from all the outrage by a small but boisterous crowd over the court finding no-excuse ballots un-constitutional confirms, there are some very dangerous people among us who embrace the idea that folks in government ought to be free to do for the people what the people have not willingly and knowingly done for themselves by their written constitution.
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control, are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
johnwk2
76
.
JANUARY 31, 2022,
“With Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices elected on a partisan ticket and Democrats currently holding a 5-2 majority on the state’s high court, Democrats are predicting the no-excuse mail-in voting law will be upheld. That forecast seems accurate given the hyper-partisan approach to legal analysis seen since the 2020 election. It’s unfortunate because yesterday’s opinion in McLinko v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reached the proper conclusion as a matter of constitutional analysis and controlling precedent”.
Aside from the author providing historical documentation confirming why no-excuse mail-in voting violates Article VII, Section 14 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution, the indication that a political partisan court may ignore the rule of law and inject its feelings as the rule of law is very scary indeed.
With that in mind, and to determine the true meaning of Article VII, Section 14 of PA’s Constitution, the Judge, in striking down no-excuse mail in ballots as being unconstitutional in his WRITTEN OPINION, takes the time to fully document the entire legislative history with regard to Article VII, Section 14.
If you follow the above link and scroll down to page 21, and read forward, it seems crystal clear the very purpose of the constitutional provision [Article VII, Section 14] is to explicitly limit the use of mail-in absentee ballot as provided in the section.
Incidentally, the historical documentation is very, very interesting, especially how absentee voting was introduced into the Pennsylvania Constitution and why!
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
johnwk2
77
Feb 2, 2022
"HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) —
Pennsylvania’s highest court said Wednesday that it will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s expansive 2-year-old mail-in voting law, whose fate is in doubt after a lower court ruled the law violates the state constitution.
The state Supreme Court said it will hear oral arguments at its March 8 session in Harrisburg. Written briefs are due before then."
The fact is, the Pennsylvania Legislature had no authority to do what it did, nor does PA’s Supreme Court have the authority to make the constitution mean what it believes it should mean.
The PA Constitution is very clear about how the Constitution may be amended, CLICK HERE
The qualified electors of the Commonwealth have the final say on agreeing or rejecting proposed amendments to their Constitution.
As Justice Hugo L. Black emphatically stated: “The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” ___ ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
