Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has issued a critical ruling that could signal the court’s willingness to hear a controversial case aimed at reversing Pennsylvania’s election results for 2020.
Originally, Alito set a deadline on Wednesday for the state to respond to the trial of GOP Representative Mike Kelly, alleging that a 2019 state electoral reform, known as Bill 77, violates both state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called “no-excuse mail-in” voting system.
Many took Wednesday’s deadline as a political theater as it would place the dossier outside the “Safe Harbor” window which requires that the controversies “concerning the nomination of all or part of the voters. . . by judicial or other methods or procedures “to be determined” at least six days before the time fixed for the voters’ meeting, “ according to Law and crime.
In today’s live coverage of Election Countdown 2020, Harrison Smith explains how continued revelations of voter fraud and nationwide patriot protests are turning the tide against Democrats and Globalists bent on stealing elections from the American people .
In other words, Tuesday’s deadline may indicate that the Supreme Court is taking Kelly’s case, which was dismissed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.
According to Kelly’s file, the system of postal voting without excuse should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a restricted list of excuses applies. Thus, Law 77 and related election access laws should be struck down – along with the votes cast under it in the 2020 elections.
More via Law and crime:
Strictly speaking, the United States Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to deal with Pennsylvania constitutional questions, such as whether the statute of the state in question (Law 77) violates the state constitution. . In general, these matters are the exclusive domain of a state supreme court. But there are exceptions to this general concept, Kelly argues, including here. Because the state is acting under “direct authority” from the US Constitution to administer federal elections, the US Supreme Court can get involved, he argues, and can determine whether the legislative and constitutional regime of Pennsylvania violates the US Constitution. Kelly calls on the United States Supreme Court to conclude as such and, perhaps more dubiously, that the manner in which the state court rejected the election violates his rights to petition the government and to benefit from due process under the first and fourteenth amendments. He frames the issues this way:
1. Do the Elections and Voters Clauses of the United States Constitution allow Pennsylvania to violate its state constitution’s restrictions on its power to legislate when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections?
2. Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States allow the rejection of petitioners’ claims with prejudice, on the basis of cowardice, where this has precluded the petitioners from seeking retrospective and prospective redress for constitutional violations in Classes?
The “election clause” of the US Constitution is Article I, § 4, clause 1. This clause basically says that state legislatures can set their own rules for elections:
The times, places and manner of holding the elections of senators and representatives shall be fixed in each state by the legislature of that state; but Congress may at any time establish or modify such regulations, except as regards the position of elected senators.
The United States Supreme Court said the drafters saw the clause as “an authorization to publish rules of procedure, and not as a source of power to dictate election results, to favor or oppose a class of candidates, or to bypass important constitutional restrictions. “(Of course, many Trump supporters try to do the opposite.)
* * *
Kelly c. Commonwealth – SCO… by Law & Crime
#Alito #advances #deadline #Supreme #Court #briefing #Pennsylvania #case #introducing #safe #harbor #window #intervene #Dateway