It's for Mike Pence to Judge whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All

[WaterSong]

First of all I didn't quote you,

To the contrary as is demonstrated in your post #56.

second of all I still don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid. :

That's OK. :)

*edit to remove extra quote block

 

[April_Rose]

I take that in spells.
Yes. U.S. Air Force 1982 - 1987

Well in that case thank you for your service.

 

[April_Rose]

To the contrary as is demonstrated in your post #56. That's OK. :)

[/QUOTE]





Care to elaborate?

 

[BarneyFife]

I don't cotton to fools

That might be considered ad hom. I forgive you. :)

 

[April_Rose]

That might be considered ad hom. I forgive you. :)

I get that all of the time so I know how that feels, but I don't think she meant it like that as she seems like she's a really nice person. :)

 

[BarneyFife]

Well in that case thank you for your service.

No trouble at all :)

 

[BarneyFife]

I get that all of the time so I know how that feels, but I don't think she meant it like that as she seems like she's a really nice person. :)

It just amuses me.

 

[BarneyFife]

I must have missed that part, but I hope you don't mean to go to war.

You might be hoping against hope.

Basically, the 14th amendment is telling us that if Congress won't police Treason, it is up to us. And why not?

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington.

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
Benjamin Franklin

 

[WaterSong]

Care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] You said you still don't understand my explanation. I find that perfectly OK.

 

[Enoch111]

Sounds pretty simple. Would that it were.

This so-called *relief* bill is a good example of dereliction of duty. And Trump went along with it. There will be no changes to this pork-laden $900 billion obscenity which is now going into law. The president had the power to veto it and send it right back the same day it arrived. After threatening to veto something, one does not back off.

 

[BarneyFife]

.

 

[BarneyFife]

You said you still don't understand my explanation. I find that perfectly OK.

It figures.

 

[WaterSong]

This so-called *relief* bill is a good example of dereliction of duty. And Trump went along with it. There will be no changes to this pork-laden $900 billion obscenity which is now going into law. The president had the power to veto it and send it right back the same day it arrived. After threatening to veto something, one does not back off.

He vetoed the NDAA. :)
And there was a demand to his signing the Covid relief bill. Congress had to increase the payments to individual citizens from $600 to $2000.
Which they did do at the starting place, the House.
22 Minutes ago: House approves Trump’s $2,000 pandemic stimulus checks, sending to GOP-led Senate

 

[BarneyFife]

This so-called *relief* bill is a good example of dereliction of duty. And Trump went along with it. There will be no changes to this pork-laden $900 billion obscenity which is now going into law. The president had the power to veto it and send it right back the same day it arrived. After threatening to veto something, one does not back off.

The only thing worse than trying to have a friendly discussion about religion is politics. Especially in the US.

 

[Enoch111]

His task will be to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

People should note that it is because the Supreme Court failed to do its duty (dereliction of duty as noted below) that the onus is now on Mike Pence to do his duty. Let's hope and pray that he does so without any fear. And if he fails, then bloody armed revolution will follow.

A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country
By Jerome Michaels

In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.

I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.

Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.

Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.

The Pennsylvania Supremes liked “laches” or simply put, “you waited too long.” The claim asserted was simple—- the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize mail-in voting so the legislature can’t do it. (One brave judge said “good point” and was promptly swept away by her betters). The Pennsylvania Supremes said you had to sue before the election. Of course, if you had, they would have said “go away you haven’t been injured.” Welcome to the legal Land of Oz.

The Michigan Federal Court liked a different spin on “too late.” They used “mootness” which means “too late because the thing you feared already happened and this court can’t fix it now.” While the Plaintiff had been frantically waving his arms begging the courts to stop certification, the political forces in Michigan went ahead and certified anyhow as the courts snoozed. Sorry, bub -- too late.

The free and fair election crowd went for a positive spin -- “No problem; doesn’t matter.” The newly minted, conservative Supreme Court is the main game. Lower courts getting out of the way is much like the Chicago Bulls clearing the other kind of court so Michael Jordan could take the last shot.

In a stroke of brilliance every non-brainwashed citizen could see, the State of Texas stepped up with the answer. An original complaint to the Supreme Court where the States that followed their election laws sued the States that violated theirs. The claim was also simple -- we jointly elect the President as a group of 50 States and our vote is being nullified since four States cheated. The argument was especially strong because if results from the four cheating States were reversed the election result changed.

Since State vs. State is an original complaint to the Supreme Court (not an appeal) the Court had the flexibility to handle it any way they wanted. Twenty-three other States and the campaigns joined in, making it a perfect solution because almost all the players were present and the Court could do whatever was right.

Well, the Supreme Court justices decided to do the one thing that wasn’t right -- they ran and hid. “Texas, you have no standing to complain about another State violating its own laws.” What?

The Constitution specifically says States suing other States can file Original Complaints with the Supreme Court. And while, generally, it may be true one State can’t complain about another State violating its own laws—-what in the world does that have to do with a situation where the 50 States jointly elect a President? With all due (rapidly diminishing) respect, what the Supreme Court said is utter nonsense. In the most important game in history, Michael took the ball, put it down on the court, and walked away as time ran out.

So, what are we seeing and where is this going? Simply put, judges are meek by nature and we are seeing the biggest “judicial deer in the headlights” in our history. It’s the nature of the beast. After all, who become judges? Former lawyers. Lawyers fight for a living. They fight for clients, they fight with partners, and they fight each other in cases.

When these lawyers have had enough fighting (or are not very good at it) they become judges. Once ensconced on that raised podium, a judge tries like crazy to avoid the fighting.

Ninety-plus percent of cases settle. Why? The judges and the system browbeat parties and their attorneys to avoid the fight with forced mediation and mandatory settlement conferences. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it does reflect the judges’ desire to be left alone. The “RBG as a crusading force for good” image is either a fantasy or a rare exception.

Make no mistake—-the American court system is terrified by the 2020 Election lawsuit claims. Think about it. If substantially proven, the claims establish that one of the major political parties mounted a coordinated effort to illegally steal a Presidential election. The courts are hiding under their collective beds and hoping the bad orange man will just go away. To reinforce this natural fear of conflict, the Left has seeded this ground with doxxing, cancel culture, and riots by Antifa and BLM.

With the 2020 election, there will be grave consequences following the Supreme Court’s insistence on being left alone. Earlier, I focused on the beginning section of the Declaration of Independence, the part saying a just government only exists with the consent of the People through free and fair elections.

The next part of the Declaration has a much darker side which the Supreme Court may bring into play if it stays in its rabbit hole. The Declaration is plain: The People have a duty to overthrow the government if it is not justly based on their collective consent. That duty reaches a critical stage when all the institutions fail them. The Supreme Court may have been our last hope. So far, the justices have utterly failed us.

Assuming the Supreme Court continues to avoid its primary reason for living -- protecting the Constitution -- can we expect a Second Declaration of Independence, followed by conflict, to address this fundamental failure? I hope not. That is the last thing any of us should wish.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has the power to avoid such an outcome by protecting election integrity. If it does not and, instead, completes the failure of our political and judicial institutions, history will record that the Supreme Court’s dereliction was a major cause of any conflict that follows. At the moment the People need them most, the Justices are running and hiding. Disgraceful. They must step up to keep the future of our Country safe and whole.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...t_in_hiding_is_dangerous_for_our_country.html

 

[Enoch111]

And there was a demand to his signing the Covid relief bill. Congress had to increase the payments to individual citizens from $600 to $2000.

What about the rest of his demand -- total removal of pork? That bill should have been totally amended before he signed it. After signing it, he has handed over all decisions to the corrupt Congress. He has essentially abdicated responsibility.

 

[WaterSong]

What about the rest of his demand -- total removal of pork? That bill should have been totally amended before he signed it. After signing it, he has handed over all decisions to the corrupt Congress. He has essentially abdicated responsibility.

Trump signs, sends redlined version of Covid catchall bill back to Congress to remove waste. What now?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

What about the rest of his demand -- total removal of pork? That bill should have been totally amended before he signed it. After signing it, he has handed over all decisions to the corrupt Congress. He has essentially abdicated responsibility.

The following is an excerpt from an article by The Epoch Times.


Trump Signs $2.3 Trillion Relief and Spending Bill, Says More Money to Come
BY JANITA KAN
December 27, 2020 Updated: December 28, 2020

The president said Sunday that along with signing the bill, he will invoke the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures. Under the Act, if the president wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular program, he can seek congressional approval to rescind by sending a special message to Congress identifying the amount he proposes to rescind, reasons for it, and the economic effects of
the rescission.

“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” he said.

Trump Signs $2.3 Trillion Relief and Spending Bill, Says More Money to Come

 

[WaterSong]

To be clear, that which you attributed to me in quote form before making this reply are not my words. You excerpted them from the article I linked in my posting, here: It's for Mike Pence to Judge whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All
And that linked article is here again linked.
https://www.americanthinker.com/art..._a_presidential_election_was_held_at_all.html

People should note that it is because the Supreme Court failed to do its duty (dereliction of duty as noted below) that the onus is now on Mike Pence to do his duty. Let's hope and pray that he does so without any fear. And if he fails, then bloody armed revolution will follow.

A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country
By Jerome Michaels

In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.

I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.

Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.

Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.

The Pennsylvania Supremes liked “laches” or simply put, “you waited too long.” The claim asserted was simple—- the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize mail-in voting so the legislature can’t do it. (One brave judge said “good point” and was promptly swept away by her betters). The Pennsylvania Supremes said you had to sue before the election. Of course, if you had, they would have said “go away you haven’t been injured.” Welcome to the legal Land of Oz.

The Michigan Federal Court liked a different spin on “too late.” They used “mootness” which means “too late because the thing you feared already happened and this court can’t fix it now.” While the Plaintiff had been frantically waving his arms begging the courts to stop certification, the political forces in Michigan went ahead and certified anyhow as the courts snoozed. Sorry, bub -- too late.

The free and fair election crowd went for a positive spin -- “No problem; doesn’t matter.” The newly minted, conservative Supreme Court is the main game. Lower courts getting out of the way is much like the Chicago Bulls clearing the other kind of court so Michael Jordan could take the last shot.

In a stroke of brilliance every non-brainwashed citizen could see, the State of Texas stepped up with the answer. An original complaint to the Supreme Court where the States that followed their election laws sued the States that violated theirs. The claim was also simple -- we jointly elect the President as a group of 50 States and our vote is being nullified since four States cheated. The argument was especially strong because if results from the four cheating States were reversed the election result changed.

Since State vs. State is an original complaint to the Supreme Court (not an appeal) the Court had the flexibility to handle it any way they wanted. Twenty-three other States and the campaigns joined in, making it a perfect solution because almost all the players were present and the Court could do whatever was right.

Well, the Supreme Court justices decided to do the one thing that wasn’t right -- they ran and hid. “Texas, you have no standing to complain about another State violating its own laws.” What?

The Constitution specifically says States suing other States can file Original Complaints with the Supreme Court. And while, generally, it may be true one State can’t complain about another State violating its own laws—-what in the world does that have to do with a situation where the 50 States jointly elect a President? With all due (rapidly diminishing) respect, what the Supreme Court said is utter nonsense. In the most important game in history, Michael took the ball, put it down on the court, and walked away as time ran out.

So, what are we seeing and where is this going? Simply put, judges are meek by nature and we are seeing the biggest “judicial deer in the headlights” in our history. It’s the nature of the beast. After all, who become judges? Former lawyers. Lawyers fight for a living. They fight for clients, they fight with partners, and they fight each other in cases.

When these lawyers have had enough fighting (or are not very good at it) they become judges. Once ensconced on that raised podium, a judge tries like crazy to avoid the fighting.

Ninety-plus percent of cases settle. Why? The judges and the system browbeat parties and their attorneys to avoid the fight with forced mediation and mandatory settlement conferences. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it does reflect the judges’ desire to be left alone. The “RBG as a crusading force for good” image is either a fantasy or a rare exception.

Make no mistake—-the American court system is terrified by the 2020 Election lawsuit claims. Think about it. If substantially proven, the claims establish that one of the major political parties mounted a coordinated effort to illegally steal a Presidential election. The courts are hiding under their collective beds and hoping the bad orange man will just go away. To reinforce this natural fear of conflict, the Left has seeded this ground with doxxing, cancel culture, and riots by Antifa and BLM.

With the 2020 election, there will be grave consequences following the Supreme Court’s insistence on being left alone. Earlier, I focused on the beginning section of the Declaration of Independence, the part saying a just government only exists with the consent of the People through free and fair elections.

The next part of the Declaration has a much darker side which the Supreme Court may bring into play if it stays in its rabbit hole. The Declaration is plain: The People have a duty to overthrow the government if it is not justly based on their collective consent. That duty reaches a critical stage when all the institutions fail them. The Supreme Court may have been our last hope. So far, the justices have utterly failed us.

Assuming the Supreme Court continues to avoid its primary reason for living -- protecting the Constitution -- can we expect a Second Declaration of Independence, followed by conflict, to address this fundamental failure? I hope not. That is the last thing any of us should wish.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has the power to avoid such an outcome by protecting election integrity. If it does not and, instead, completes the failure of our political and judicial institutions, history will record that the Supreme Court’s dereliction was a major cause of any conflict that follows. At the moment the People need them most, the Justices are running and hiding. Disgraceful. They must step up to keep the future of our Country safe and whole.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...t_in_hiding_is_dangerous_for_our_country.html

 

[FollowHim]

Posted to its own thread so that it doesn't get lost in a different thread page after page.
Pray Mike Pence does the right thing.

I want to put forward a simple principle.
If the outgoing administration could based on their opinion throw out the winning vote there would be no democracy.
Democracy relies on the state being able to throw out the current administration and appoint the new administration.
It is what stops it becoming a dictatorship. And this is full understood and agreed to by all participants.

The power behind the principles are the judges who enact the law, the police and army who uphold by force the judgements of the judges and the executive as it is legally held. The reason the army do not rule, is because the army enact orders, and do not question or way up the balances and subtlety. It is why the police are used answerable to the communities they serve.

Pence is part of the outgoing administration acknowledging the passing of power to the next administration, as a symbol of power, but not power itself. Trump in his rants is actually attempting a coup by any means. And the problem with this is if the system starts to intervene the boundaries between the civil service who are not political and the politicians gets blurred, and corruption flows. But Trump by appointing judges to the supreme court thought he had bought the result, by appointing judges to the federal courts thought he had bought them also. In a way he may actually have strengthened the rule of law and reasonable values, while not knowing it, and made the democratic survival of the system more likely.

God used the Babylonians to judge the Israel, Trump has shown who will flock to him for a coup without respecting the true challenges of the day and where our focus needs to be. Who would have thought GM and Ford are on the scrap pile, EV cars are coming with driverless vehicles, with massive driver layoffs. Or working from home, the death of city and town centres, which we are literally witnessing before our eyes.

Do you want to go back to the way it was before?

God bless you