According to @TaLoN132 Here's how you can pass any unconstitutional law.

1) Wait until you have a favorable Supreme Court
2) Exclude any other Court from ruling on it, And ensure only the Supreme Court can rule on it
3) Set a time limit of 180 days to when you can challenge it's constitutionality, and then it goes into effect
4) When nobody challenges it because you have a favorable supreme court, if later, somebody challenges it, cite that they didn't challenge it during the 180 days.

Ultimately, the legislaters can slate electoral college votes for Steve Courtney from Crypto Crew University if they thought it was a good idea, and the congress could approve thpose if they agreed. So, in the end, it's the legislaters who need to be convince that they should,

Latches

So Rudy’s argument is where this all going all along

Fun with infernos.

Wow no just watched it and posted to facebook let's see if they censor this the lady is simply showing what you can do!!

The algos disapprove of thinking outside of sanction narratives.

I'm not sure what Rudy's exact argument is. I never liked the guy from back when he tried to tell me 9/11 was caused by terrorists. But, if Donald Trump hired him, and Donald Trump said trust him, I'm only counting his as a good guy because I trust Donald J. Trump. I just wish heTrump had gotten this far in 2000 with the Reform Party when he wrote the book that got me interested in politics "The America We Deserve". As for my answer, that's based on The Constitution.

@Autumn_Katrina, you just advanced to level 2!

Rudy's exact argument ?

@Autumn_Katrina He’s been presenting directly to state legislature at hearings

I was just pointing out that they provided more justification they made in their Response. It wasn't my case. I'm just a computer nerd from CA.

That's a very good question, additionally I'd like to know what the end game is.

I trust Donald J Trump... never trust a charlatan

Is it to drum up media attention so the populace will force the state representatives to pick Republican electors?

@TaLoN132 is famous

These people are not stupid people, the legal team has to know their witnesses come across as ....

I'm glad someone else brought up the 911 Giuliani connection, as the thoughts you have expressed are very much the thoughts that I have in this regard.

@DrSammyD Act 77 gave standing to all for 6 months to challenge Act 77. After the Primaries any injured party could have sued Act 77 to remove it for November.

So you can sleep a little better at night... You might want to consider that all buildings in NY might be equipped with mechanisms that will prevent a disaster in one building from taking down the whole skyline. It probably is true in every city. Once the damage from the terrorist attack appeared to jeopardize the stability of the structure, they had to bring it down safely in order to protect the nearby buildings. This is why it appears to come down as if demolished professional... It is also the reason why they will allow conspiracy theories to permeate, because admitting that all city buildings could be brought down at any time is too dangerous to announce to the world.

Cool. So any unconstitutional act can be created by giving standing to everybody to sue for X time period. Glad you think that. I think that's retarded

@TaLoN132 what

I think there are a lot of end games going on here. The election isn't the only thing going on. A lot of this looks to me like the kinds of things Cult of the Dead Cow used to talk about needing to happen to the world in the 1990's -- that "free speech"/"anti-censorship" vs. "speech curation"/"social decency" would reverse positions on the political spectrum, that criminals where intent upon hijacking which ever major political party gave them the most credibility, and when they did, an offensive, rudely awakening, truth bearer from either The Reform, The Independance, The Green, or The Libertarian Party would hijack the opposing major party....

@DrSammyD It's not unconstitutional until it is ruled so by the relevant courts.

Just a theory of mine... I have no actual knowledge.

Considering where key members of CotDC have ended up, I think this part of some kind fo culture transforming psyops.

"(The constituion)..." - "Unless the law was passed and gives you 180 days to challenge it".

@Autumn_Katrina old school hacktivist? R U

How about 10 minutes?

@DrSammyD Right, the law itself provides standing to anyone who wants it regardless of injury to challenge the law. It's a benefit to people who think the law is unconstitutional so they have a chance to have it ruled so. BTW how many groups took advantage of this oppotunity?

@Dedkraken Do the proud boys really worry you on any level or do you just have a problem with groups of Americans that don't like liberals. The top person of the Proud Boys is black by the way.

Like it.

I think they were saying.... "We think we did this correctly, but if anyone objects, please challenge it. Otherwise, we have an election to prepare for."

how long would a normal fraud case take to prosecute?

https://tenor.com/view/omw-on-my-way-headingout-gif-6229326

Texas

@Phil investigate and prosecute?

Lots of momentum for Trump team today.

"We think we did this correctly, but if anybody objects, please challenge it (before you have injury). Otherwise we have a (war that's not declared | treaties to sign that constrain our citizens rights | bla bla bla bla bla) to get to."

Lengthy process.

What happened with the Trump team today? I heard nothing.