Democrats Admit Breaking PA. Law - 11/18 PA. Supreme Court Stops the Steal

Yeah, I thought that was weird too... happened to me. But, my Dem (registered) friend had no such problem with her Florida license when she voted... FOR TRUMP.

 

Tony Soprano, is that you?

 

Glad Shapiro is denouncing this blatant ignoring of a court ruling. Shows again how poor of a choice it was for Harris to not take Shapiro. She most likely wins PA if she didn't cave to the Antisemites.

 

VOTING for a convicted felon is NOT against the law.

 

Does that include disobeying them and then taking the consequences? Don't get me wrong, I admire people who take what they sincerely believe to be a principled position - such as Liz Cheney - as long as they appreciate that their opinion as to 'necessity and justness' may not be universally held.

 

Yep, it certainly can. Anyone who argues that we should follow laws simply because they are laws is swimming against the tide of American history.

 

No doubt, the Democratic party has done some reprehensible things. This was especially so back in the days of Jim Crow when the 'Democratic Party' was the conservative party. As far as attitudes and positions, the parties have flipped.

I guess my point is I don't see you're point. Why come on here and, extolling Rick Scott of all people, refer to only democrats as rats? Do you think that leads to intelligent discussion?

 

if you choose to disobey the law you should be arrested and tried
if you do not like the law then try and get it changed but there is nothing I can find in the Constitution that covers you for swimming against the tide

 

I didn't argue or even imply that.

 

For all of the Dems here who always be like "show me the evidence of the fraud, hurr hurr" Here it is. They didn't even try to hide it. Blatant fraud right before our eyes to change the outcome of an election. I don't ever want to hear a Dem mock Trump/GOP for alleging voter fraud in these Dem dominated jurisdictions, especially the ones that take weeks to count their votes. THIS IS THE EVIDENCE.

 

It's hilarious that with everything lost by the Dems in this election that they also managed to lose the plausible deniability of their election fraud scheme.

 

Then go back and read it again. The framers clearly implied "swimming against the tide" via freedom of assembly and expression, etc., etc. We are admired - or were - the world over not because of, say, our military, but because we were a free AND (largely) fair society striving to get better as a people.

 

Yeah and when your own state supreme court has validated the existing law, even more so. This was a brazen attempt to subvert election law.

 

implied does not make it a law and getting better as a society does not say by breaking current laws because I do not like them

 

I didn't question your right to express your opinions. I questioned your unrelenting selective bias. I am biased, but I try to keep an open mind. I admitted democrats are less than perfect. I've yet to see in your many posts anything resembling an open mind. It's not a black or white world. Try seeing the point of view of those you don't agree with.

 

Bill, you realize that America became America because a bunch of British subjects decided to disobey what they felt were unjust laws, right? But if that doesn't do it for you, let's talk American history. About a decade after we ratified the Constitution, the Federalist majority in Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798. This law essentially made it a crime for Americans to criticize the President and members of Congress. Thomas Jefferson secretly wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, which declared that the Kentucky Legislature held the law to be null and void because it violated the Constitution. James Madison drafted the Virginia Report, which defended the right to free speech---particularly the right to criticize one's government---and declared the law unconstitutional. Numerous people refused to follow this law and openly criticized the Federalist Congress and President John Adams. Some were prosecuted for it. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent President Adams, pardoned every person prosecuted under the Sedition Act, and years later, Congress repaid the money they were fined.

Let's talk about the antebellum era. During this time, people set up an elaborate network to help enslaved persons escape and evade capture. What they were doing was illegal under the laws at the time. They did it anyways, willing to accept the consequences. Antislavery activists also routinely violated Southern laws prohibiting the articulation of antislavery sentiments by sending abolitionist publications to the South. They did it because they believed that they had a right to free speech and in the promise of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We can jump forward to the Civil Rights Movement. Although, in doing so, I'm bypassing a long history of Americans refusing to follow unjust laws. But I don't have all day here. Men and women practiced civil disobedience throughout the South to protest segregation. They refused to follow fundamentally unjust laws. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail aptly sums up my point: "One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"

Resisting unjust laws is quintessentially American. You will never convince me that refusing to follow unjust laws is wrong.

No, it's what the person I originally responded to is arguing. You asked a question. I explained where I'm coming from.