Anonymous ID: 18a23e Dec. 17, 2020, 5:32 p.m. No.12072474   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2542 >>2601 >>2620 >>2789 >>2807 >>2839

Sorry, my frens, if this is redundant. But after long day at work and being laughed at by a loved one for saying indeed the fight isn't over - after showing this person Biden's legal fund (w a statement that the fight isn't over), pleading for money to fight against Trump's (our) legal attacks - I found this news and immediately wanted to share in a place where I can expect respect and kindness. NOTHING CAN STOP WHAT IS COMING! NOTHING.

Anonymous ID: 18a23e Dec. 17, 2020, 5:44 p.m. No.12072651   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2683

>>12072394

Hey, lawfag here. And as I spend 90% of my time on state lawfaggy business, I'm not as informed on the boards or "news" as I should be.. I'm a tiny confused on what your asking. But, you're right, shall = must. If states fail to respond as required, the EO shouldn't lose effectiveness. It wouldn't become moot or suddenly unenforceable because states succeed in dragging their feet. In fact, a lot of law directly addresses purposeful delaying of action in legal settings or proceedings, and provides penalties for such if it continues. Think contempt of court. BUT, I need to research this. I'm not fresh on EO law or really on much of your question. I'm just a baby esq. I'll look more into it if you'd like.