Mark Levin Article

@OllieC - I read the article and it appears neither well researched, balanced nor factual. I had not previously heard of Blaze Media or Mark Levin - so did a little research - yikes - very on the fringe! Time to find a better news source such as the WSJ.
 
hynespa said:
@OllieC - I read the article and it appears neither well researched, balanced nor factual. I had not previously heard of Blaze Media or Mark Levin - so did a little research - yikes - very on the fringe! Time to find a better news source such as the WSJ.
Click to expand...
News source? A news source would be to get the weather, see what the market is like for the day, and maybe for the local traffic.

You admit you have never heard of him, so you went on Google and found “opinions” of others from the MSM and used that as your basis - then took the time to post this information? That’s pretty neat.

So instead of dropping bombs with no explanation like the other liberals in here, why don’t you explain to us what this lawyer, who has practiced Constitutional law for decades and worked under Ronald Reagan, hasn’t “very well researched”, hasn’t “balanced” (weird) or what isn’t “factual”, especially when referencing the Constitution and the legislatures involvement in the electoral process.
 
Last edited:
hynespa said:
@OllieC - I read the article and it appears neither well researched, balanced nor factual. I had not previously heard of Blaze Media or Mark Levin - so did a little research - yikes - very on the fringe! Time to find a better news source such as the WSJ.
Click to expand...
Instead of doing "research" of others opinions, why don't you read/listen to him and form you own opinion. He's actually a pretty articulate and well reasoned guy. Doesn't mean you have to agree with him.
 
Golfman25 said:
Instead of doing "research" of others opinions, why don't you read/listen to him and form you own opinion. He's actually a pretty articulate and well reasoned guy. Doesn't mean you have to agree with him.
Click to expand...
You want him to do what?...listen and consider what? This is how my sister answered a similar request from me a while back.....'I don't know why I should have to even listen to anything you have to say'
 
Here is a well-written lawyerly rebuttal to Levin's thesis. Written back in November since Levin has been hawking the same idea for months as court after court including SCOTUS has shot it down:
State Legislatures Can’t Ignore the Popular Vote in Appointing Electors
https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-legislatures-cant-ignore-popular-vote-appointing-electors

In addition, it seems to me that Levin conveniently ignored the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provided the implementing law to carry out the Constitution as amended with respect to presidential elections. It codifies the procedures to ensure that electoral votes will be counted in accordance with the certified inputs from the state legislatures as voted by the people of those states.

Lastly, Levin doesn't go into the implications of Congress and the Vice President overturning an election. The last group the founders wanted to be able to decide national elections were those entities for what should be obvious reasons.
 
alnav said:
Here is a well-written lawyerly rebuttal to Levin's thesis. Written back in November since Levin has been hawking the same idea for months as court after court including SCOTUS has shot it down:
State Legislatures Can’t Ignore the Popular Vote in Appointing Electors
https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-legislatures-cant-ignore-popular-vote-appointing-electors

In addition, it seems to me that Levin conveniently ignored the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which provided the implementing law to carry out the Constitution as amended with respect to presidential elections. It codifies the procedures to ensure that electoral votes will be counted in accordance with the certified inputs from the state legislatures as voted by the people of those states.

Lastly, Levin doesn't go into the implications of Congress and the Vice President overturning an election. The last group the founders wanted to be able to decide national elections were those entities for what should be obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Your article is a non-sequitur. Not at all what is being discussed.....and no, as daily listener, Mark has debunked this pathetic supposed push to “overturn” the election via the legislation. He has discussed history and the process as a whole . He explains in this particular article the process via the role of the legislature in creating the election rules or election code and the clear violations that occurred. So what does what you just posted have to do with violations from the state executive and state judicial branches changing election rules when it’s laid out in the Constitution that it is the function of the State Legislature? Re-read and try again.
 
OllieC said:
Your article is a non-sequitur. Not at all what is being discussed.....and no, as daily listener, Mark has debunked this pathetic supposed push to “overturn” the election via the legislation. He has discussed history and the process as a whole . He explains in this particular article the process via the role of the legislature in creating the election rules or election code and the clear violations that occurred. So what does what you just posted have to do with violations from the state executive and state judicial branches changing election rules when it’s laid out in the Constitution that it is the function of the State Legislature? Re-read and try again.
Click to expand...
The article I posted references a Levin tweet as its entering argument. Here's the full tweet:
"REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY", he shouted.
-are you saying he has since debunked his own notion?
Back to the two articles:
-in response to Levin's tweet and other statement, the article I posted refutes this premise:
The state legislatures, according to the Constitution, get to decide elections, so they have permission to go rogue and create Electoral College slates of their own choosing. The article makes the case that ultimately, legally, the states are merely passing on the will of the people as reflected in adjudicated election results based on their respective laws that were in place before he election.
Levin's most recent article you posted makes the case (at least the way I read it) that, since the states didn't follow his original advice (linkage between the two articles), the Republicans in Congress need to fix it by presumably creating their own slates of electors. He cites numerous examples of how he believes that executive branch and judicial players in the various states thwarted the will of the legislatures, therefore those elections are invalid. What he fails to recognize is, that in most every law, state and federal, there are delegations of authorities to carry out the law. As long as they don't violate the letter of the law, those delegated authorities are valid extensions of the law itself, whether or not the legislature mentioned the specifics in the original law. In this case, I think every instance of these authorities have been challenged and almost every one upheld by the courts including SCOTUS, so the system is working. So, Levin's entering premise is flawed, at least in my opinion.

BTW, what's your response about the points about Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the implications of the Congress declaring the electoral (and popular) vote loser the winner?
 
Again non-sequitur. What you are posting has no bearing to the article I posted. Start a different topic.

However, Yes, Mark has laid out the law which is in the Constitution. What part of his tweet do you not understand? You equate that post with going rogue?? (His tweet has nothing to do with his article I posted) Laughable.....

As it relates to this thread, those aren’t his opinions btw, they are the framers.....and yes, those states “DID” violate the law. SCOTUS could have and should have nipped this in the bud before the election...but instead they punted and are now using the poor excuse of latches.

So what’s the confusion? Do you believe that the Executive Branch has the power to change election rules? Do you believe the Judicial branch, who is suppose to be non-political, should be able to change election rules mid election? If you do too either or both, you are incorrect.

We’ve already discussed 1887 in previous posts - go read it there. It has zero bearing to this article.
 
Last edited:
OllieC said:
Again non-sequitur. What you are posting has no bearing to the article I posted. Start a different topic.

However, Yes, Mark has laid out the law which is in the Constitution. What part of his tweet do you not understand? You equate that post with going rogue?? (His tweet has nothing to do with his article I posted) Laughable.....

As it relates to this thread, those aren’t his opinions btw, they are the framers.....and yes, those states “DID” violate the law. SCOTUS could have and should have nipped this in the bud before the election...but instead they punted and are now using the poor excuse of latches.

So what’s the confusion? Do you believe that the Executive Branch has the power to change election rules? Do you believe the Judicial branch, who is suppose to be non-political, should be able to change election rules mid election? If you do too either or both, you are incorrect.

We’ve already discussed 1887 in previous posts - go read it there. It has zero bearing to this article.
Click to expand...
Having written draft legislation that subsequently became law, I think I have a reasonable understanding of the process and structure. As I said, most laws contain provisions to allow some flexibility for implementation. "Rules" are by definition not laws but are the directives put in place, almost always by the executive branch to fully implement the law. That's certainly the case with election law as the drafters recognize they cannot foresee all possible events that will have an impact to be dealt with, say, a pandemic. Courts also have the leeway to interpret the law as necessary as well, which also happened in some cases. Levin doesn't address this although it certainly has bearing on his position. So, yes, both the executive and judicial branches can and do change the rules.

So, yes, Levin was encouraging the legislatures to "go rogue" and disregard the law, including the Constitution by inserting themselves after the face. He's similarly encouraging the Congress to act similarly.

I guess it's not clear that the 1887 Electoral Count Act provides the procedure for Congressmen to challenge state results, so certainly relevant. Levin is relying on that part of the law but ignoring the rest which lays out the conditions for which state-certified results may be contested.
 
I’m very proud of you. I design and work with manufacturers who implement fiber optic cables and the corresponding hardware. :confused: Sorry, I completely disagree. There is no precedent to what you are saying in the Constitution as it applies. That is your opinion and yours alone. The judicial and executive branch have no authority to change “election rules” mid election. Election rules in each state come from the Legislative branch. Mr. Levin lays this out clearly as it relates to the Constitution. You have no argument.
 
Last edited:
OllieC said:
I’m very proud of you. I design and work with manufacturers who implement fiber optic cables and the corresponding hardware. :confused: Sorry, I completely disagree. There is no precedent to what you are saying in the Constitution as it applies. That is your opinion and yours alone. The judicial and executive branch have no authority to change “election rules” mid election. Election rules in each state come from the Legislative branch. Mr. Levin lays this out clearly as it relates to the Constitution. You have no argument.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. There are dozens of cases now on the books where the issues Levin raises were decided by the courts. Almost all were lost by President Trump himself, his campaign and/or supporters. A couple were decided in the plaintiff's favor but did not involve enough votes to change the outcome. I suggest you peruse the opinions to obtain a counterpoint to the one-sided views you seem to be subject to.
Here's a good summary with links to the opinions which contains a variety of precedents:
Lawsuit tracker: Donald Trump’s legal battle runs into repeated dead ends
https://www.ft.com/content/20b114b5-5419-493b-9923-a918a2527931
 
Start your own thread instead of hijacking this one with non related articles please......:rolleyes:
 
Here is another counterpoint to Levin:
Give it up, Mr. President — for your sake and the nation’s
"You had every right to investigate the election. But let’s be clear: Those efforts have found nothing. To take just two examples: Your campaign paid $3 million for a recount in two Wisconsin counties, and you lost by 87 more votes. Georgia did two recounts of the state, each time affirming Biden’s win. These ballots were counted by hand, which alone debunks the claims of a Venezuelan vote-manipulating Kraken conspiracy.
Sidney Powell is a crazy person. Michael Flynn suggesting martial law is tantamount to treason. It is shameful."
https://nypost.com/2020/12/27/give-it-up-mr-president-for-your-sake-and-the-nations/
upload_2020-12-31_19-19-24.png
 
Its worth the time to watch 20 mins.
The Battle of Athens 1946. I never heard of this in high School but it should be required in every Civics class.
Eventually this is what will need to happen to right the left listing ship. Nothing like hot lead and TNT to get to the truth!
Carpe Diem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,167
Messages
1,427,702
Members
61,078
Latest member
96SR40EC
Back
Top