>>11827501 pb
>>11827458 pb
They always seem to USE "our rights" as a way to hurt us, They love to turn it around
for example in Bush vs. Gore the vote counting was stopped, with no discrimination as to legal or illegal ballots, on the basis of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment,
Voters who had their vote counted vs. Voters who did not
Rudy is trained Prosecutor rather than Constitutional lawyer; right?
Wonder if he's read Bush vs. Gore?
Exactly the tack of Rudy G. taking up the Equal Rights clause.
The argument was like this (and infringed upon the legitimate right to have a legitimate vote counted)
~ Since many voters did not have their votes counted,
To Count the votes remaining is unfair to those who did not have their votes counted.
Therefore everyone should be equal in that
There is no right of the citizen to have his or her vote counted.
i.e, Everyone should be EQUAL in a lack of a specific Right.
So the Equal Right's Clause was turned around to Limit a citizen's rights rather to enhance it.
The evil shits LOVE that.
They hate us to have rights
Any chance they can they will invert our rights and (attempt to) use them against us… I feel Bush vs Gore illustrated that principle
cf. "None Dare Call it Treason" V. Bugliosi
Giuliani takes "Bush vs. Gore' as his template. So maybe with a sympathetic Court it will win?
But it was a tainted case with Scalia asserting , on his own, that it could bear, not at all ever, on any future cases.
Which itself seems against the law or at least points to the face "Bush vs Gore" was unfair and therefor the reasoning used in it, should never be used again. A one-off An arbitrary ruling.
The relief will come not through vote counting but through application of the Constitutional remedies as for when electors or elector votes are in dispute by a certain date?
Didn't SCOTUS conclude B v. G that a citizen has a powerless "right" to have a vote counted?
Is this another time when the contractor gets supposedly in trouble (but doesn't) for Fraud, like what happened vis a vis NIST for the report on the 9/11 collapse of the Towers?
I noticed the 113 in the CFR [?] number
Good luck getting "Dominion" in trouble;
Didn't the company just disappear?