Ten state Attorney Generals joined a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Pennsylvania court’s attempt to unlawfully change the Constitution while a Pennsylvania USPS official is willing to testify.

The Attorney Generals have filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court in a case seeking reversal of a lower court order allowing mail-in ballots in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania to be received three days after the election day.


Save up to 66% on MyPillow products. Use promo code FedUp, and save up to 66%.

FOX 43 reports:

The brief was filed Nov. 9 in support of Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar and Scarnati v. Boockvar by the Attorney General of Missouri and joined by the Attorneys General of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Both lawsuits challenge a decision made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in October mail-in ballots could be counted if they were received by Friday, Nov. 6 . . .

Trending: Breaking Video: Biden Claims Workers Aren’t Being Paid To Stay Home...Gets Confused...Says The Exact Opposite

. . . The Republican Attorneys General’s amicus brief argues the three-day ballot acceptance extension violates the U.S. Constitution elections clause, which states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

The President weighed in on the pending suit tweeting, “Highly Respected Ken Starr: “Pennsylvania’s three-day extension of the mail-in ballot deadline is a Constitutional Travesty.” Legal scholars agree!”

It’s about time states across the United States stand up for the American voter. When states like California changed their voter laws allowing the harvesting of ballots which led to enough Democrat Representative wins in 2018 to win the House, they injured all Americans.

This move by ten states adds additional weight to the seriousness of the case and the seriousness of a state independently making non-constitutional decisions to steal an election. Before the election, the three liberal judges on the Supreme court all agreed with the unconstitutional Pennsylvania law but when Judge Roberts agreed with them, the ruling went back to the lower court since the Supreme Court’s vote ended in a tie.  Judge Barrett declined to join the court due to her being new to the job and not having been engaged in the case.

If and when this goes back to the Supreme Court all nine justices will likely vote and the unconstitutionality of the attempted steal will be overturned.  However, the remedy will be challenging.  If the votes were not properly segregated, then another suit will likely ensue.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.