Mathematician says End of election night mathematically impossible

Politics
42

Yes it happens all the time in all laws. The Executive branch execute the laws, they carry them out and within there is discretion as long as it is made in good faith towards the execution of those laws.

So if the general election law to ensure a a free and fair election for as many eligible voters as possible, executive discretion in the furtherance is that law made in good faith is perfectly constitutional, done all day every in all 50 states covering all areas of executive functions. All perfectly Constitutional.

Considering how terribly some legislation is written if the Execitive didn’t have some discretion in carrying out those laws then things grind to a halt.

43

I will admit, I didn’t spend anytime examining it but regardless, that doesn’t negate my point.

…and you just made my point. Thanks. :sunglasses:

44

Article I, section 4 of the US Constitution gives states legislatures the sole authority to enact or change election laws. But hey. the Constitution is a “living document” right?

45

No, the word “sole” doesn’t appear in Article I, Section 4.

2 Likes
47

It does however say “shall”. :wink:

48

Correct, “shall” it is. And nowhere do the words “executive” or “judicial” branches exist either.

49

Here is what isn’t satire. They told you that there was not enough fraud to change the results. But they refused to tell you how much fraud their was.

50

You appear to be saying that he law is broken “all the time” by political office holders and the judiciary because they believe the law as written by legislators is impractical. Therefore, it’s acceptable for any office-holder to break the law whenever they feel the law as written is flawed.

Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of the legislature to own their incompetence and fix a law if it is not producing the outcomes they intended. And if it is producing the outcomes intended by the legislature, what gives citizens the right to transgress or over-ride that law?

51

It’s the same concept as Executive Orders, they have to be made pursuant to carrying out an existing law in good faith.

No laws broken. Good talk.

52

And if some citizens believe the action is contrary to existing law, and not in good faith but for political or personal advantage, what recourse should they have?

53

Gosh Amazing how similar the gamestop pause was like the election night pause wasn’t it…???

“You are not allowed to win”, say big tech Tyrants the dems seem to love…

1 Like
54

The “facts” were disputed. More than once. Thanks for stopping by.

55

Yeah. It was Democrats who gave those “big tech tyrants” huge tax breaks, right? :roll_eyes:

56

They exercise their 1st Amendment rights and sue.

57

When Kamala Harris said “There’s a reason kids under 18 can’t vote. It’s because they are stupid… (giggle)” and now Dems want to lower the voting age, and their policy platform is being driven by activist children, what does that make Harris and her ilk, if not stupid?

58

And what if the judge approached refuses to hear their suit and allow their argument to be made, again for political or personal advantage?

59

That doesn’t happen. It’s hand waving ■■■■■■■■ from people who dont know how anything works.

60

If a judge refuses to hear the suit for their political or personal advantage, then appeal. If more than a dozen judges refuse to hear the suit, craft a better legal argument. When you get to 80 judges that rule against your arguments, create an absurd conspiracy theory.

2 Likes
61

It’s happening with judges refusing to hear the suit against illegal election law changes by office-holders unqualified to change the laws passed by legislatures.

62

They did. it’s over with.