I know I don’t live in Texas, so this may be none of my biz . . . BUT
Watch what he had to say about the Congressional Vote on Jan. 6th.
Why would the Constitution outline an option to “contest” a states electoral vote IF there were no remedies for said contestation?
Sorry to say, but I think TX has a RINO in Mr. Crenshaw.
He either is too lazy to understand said law or is simply going along with “nothing we can do but vote to accept”.
Texas, you decide. God Speed.
11 replies on “Texas & Dan Crenshaw”
The projection and hypocrisy is so egregiously bald faced.
IMO C. is way more right than wrong in this speech.
The sentence about constitutionality is just one, he did not elaborate how he concluded and may be right or wrong — whatever the case does not make him RINO.
We know that the electors belong to the states. Overturning the will of the state is not up to the congress.
Our problem with the election is not on that level. At all. The sent electors are, in fact reflecting what the state wanted, if we define “state” as the governor, the government, the judges, the congress, or anyone holding the power. Those players had ample opportunity to do something, and did not, they all agreed actively or passively to roll witth the sent electors.
What we claim is that it was not reflecting the sum of legal ballots from the people. But resolving that conflict should be inside the state and not in the congress.
So C looks more right than wrong even in that, if he thinks along those lines.
Honestly, did we expect different end result in the congress? As I recall we thought the best case there will be several days of talk. Before a similar vote. Still good to see the colors. But not as overturning.
My whole point is why does the Constitution allow for contestation of certified electoral votes by Congress, have to have a legislator and a senator to contest, 2 hours of debate, a vote in each chamber, etc. if there is no other recourse?
Suppose the governor (or whoever is pointed as the final submitter) sends electors in opposition of the state elections as confirmed by everything else. The congress does not need to just blindly accept whatever — there can be reason to differ.
The current situation is by all means good enough to have the debate, but the arguments behind overturning don’t look very strong. Is it the congress’ task to look after who is legal to vote in a staae and how the signatures matched? Or it is all others’ job?
It is the duty of Congress to ensure the electoral certifications were submitted by the appropriate body in each state (which all were not). It is the duty of the courts of each state to at least hear the evidence of said lawsuits (which was not). Dismissed outright without hearing evidence is not jurisprudence.
We had no recourse. Not in the election officials, not in the state legislatures, not in the state courts, not with the Gov. or AG’s, not even with the SCOTUS.
dismissing outright is not the same as hearing the evidence.
Yeah. And?
It was their job. They did it wrong. And the people accepted it, inviting to repeat.
The congress is not the deus ex machina to stand against all that flood.
As Bill said, the US people abdicated their job to self-govern. The direct consequence being they are now governed by others. Undo the root cause if there is enough will, or face the reality that not being involved and roll with the rot is actually the will of the majority.
I give no benefit of the doubt to Mr. Crenshaw. He is a capitulator.
Being in the UK, I guess I don’t have much right to comment, but I am an opinionated SoB, so I will anyway.
Crenshaw says some good stuff, but he doesn’t stand up for gun rights and I believe that to be the real sign of whether someone is for individual rights, or state power.
Texan here.
Problem is, Congress did overturn the election. They were given slates of electors – one submitted by the governor based on fraud, and one submitted by the legislature based on reality. Congress overturned the real election.
As to whether or not he’s a RINO, I’m not sure. He’s been an excellent fighter for us before, and his statement about fixing this on the state level is in sync with Bill Whittle’s call for us to fix this on the local level. So he’s right on the money there.
He supports Red Flag laws too. 🙁 I agree with his local level stuff. Like I said, I’m not in TX, so . . .
I simply do not see how some “peaceful” percolation of justice from the bottom up, AKA local, is going to work. How is it going to work? Can you describe an effective method whereby all we need do is elect the right people locally? Do you and Bill not think we have not already been trying to do that? Ask the conservative people of California, especially those living in LA county and San Francisco and the conservatives of Oregon, Washington state, and Georgia how that has been working out for them. How is it supposed to work exactly in the face of blatant corruption? Please tell me.