HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » exboyfil » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

exboyfil

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Nov 3, 2008, 07:28 AM
Number of posts: 15,969

Journal Archives

Good article pulling down Hawley's argument on the floor

after the entire Congress was put into jeopardy. He thought this argument was a reason to not certify Pennsylvania.

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/josh-hawley-pennsylvania-bob-casey-mail-in-voting-ballots-2020-presidential-election/2659177/

A 2019 change to the voting law is unconstitutional under the state law? The writer makes a good argument why it is constitutional, but a more important reason that this is insane IS THAT THIS ARGUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN 2019. The article doesn't mention laches but that seems to be the most important factor.


The argument that U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, delivered early Wednesday in the recently-stormed Capitol building during the certification of the Electoral College revolved around the constitutionality of the state's mail-in voting. He did not challenge the state's actual election results, unlike President Donald Trump, who attacked without evidence the vote count for months.

"You have a state Constitution that has been interpreted for over a century to say that there is no mail-in balloting permitted, except for a narrow circumstances thatís also provided in the law," Hawley said.

He argued, in essence, that Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature did not have the right to pass a law in 2019 that allowed universal mail-in voting.

Instead, according to Hawley this week and the lawsuit denied by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, mail-in voting could only be allowed through a constitutional amendment.


Some legal experts disagree with that interpretation and the argument has yet to receive a favorable opinion in court.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, also disagreed in his own speech early Wednesday with Hawley's reading of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

"The law in question, Act 77, was passed in 2019 and implemented without any serious question as to its constitutionality," Casey said. "It was only after the 2020 presidential election when it became clear President-elect Joe Biden won Pennsylvania by a little more than 80,000 votes did some Republican politicians in our state decide to challenge the constitutionality of the law."

Eliminating the Presidential Pardon power


It is Andrew McCarthy at National Review that is proposing it. It is a good idea, but obviously, the reform doesn't come soon enough for it to stop Trump abusing it. Since you can do anything you want, I would propose that a compromise to remove pardon protections with a look back time that includes the last year of Trump's administration. Normally Ex post facto is wrong, but, given the level of corruption we have seen, it should happen.

Why did Obama issue a pardon to James Cartwright? This article talks about that pardon and cites it as a political pardon. The only other example of "political" Obama pardons were the ones for drug offenders which were compassionate and smart. So smart that one person who was missed, and even a little questionable given the surrounding circumstances, was pardoned by Trump in a real big show basically sticking it in the face of Obama.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/01/25/repeal-the-pardon-power/

Doomsday Pardon

Lifted from Jimmy Carter's Draft Avoidance Pardon with CAPITALIZATION signifying edits.

I,DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between JANUARY 1, 1900 and JANUARY 20, 2021 in violation of ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, LAW, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between JANUARY 1, 1900 and JANUARY 20, 2021 in violation of ANY FEDERAL STATUTE, LAW, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

Biden and Harris need to be in separate locations

even for the inauguration. The same for Pelosi. I don't know if our Pro Temp will be seated by that time, but the same for Leahy.

I guess you could argue that it is giving in to the terrorists, but you also have a Covid reason for a more scaled down/even virtual inauguration.

The security for this event is still being provided by Trump's administration, and no one can be trusted in it.

Thank you Stacey Abrams, Raphael Warnock, and Jon Ossoff.

Confirmation hearings for Biden Cabinet

Have these been scheduled for the new Congress? Here is a news story from 2017 to see what timeline happened last time.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/guide-weeks-confirmation-hearings-jeff-sessions-rex-tillerson

Kia ball drop

My wife wanted to see New York ball drop for the New Year. Instead we had a huge Kia videos screen pretty much obscuring everything. She wasn't pleased.

I don't think Kia got the bang for their advertising buck that they anticipated. In another direction it was a Volkswagen banner. Not quite as obnoxious, but you really still couldn't see the ball drop.

I wonder if there is a message in that two foreign auto companies are prominently being displayed to the point of distraction for our uniquely American celebration.

Had to talk my son in law down regarding aliens

He asked me about the recent report by the former head of the Israeli Space program of the existence of aliens and our cooperation with them.

I gave him the Carl Sagan quote of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Not sure it did any good.




https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israeli-space-security-chief-says-aliens-exist-humanity-not-ready-651405
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2