(04-21-2022 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In the NC case which Cawthorn filed against the state elections board, a federal judge agreed that the 'blanket provision' was valid, and ruled against the elections board disqualifying Cawthorn based on progressive complainant's challenges in front of that board.

On top of that, the progressives in that case cannot appeal the judge's ruling --- they arent parties to the case. But, leave it to the progressives to try and make up a new rule to get their way and assert they have standing to appeal. So, an appeal to the 4th Circuit is underway with the challengers screaming and shouting that 'they have standing' to pursue this.

They also argue that the blanket language used really isnt blanket language. And honestly, there is a point to that.

Although I'm don't want Cawthorne's opponents to succeed, I'm leery of the courts setting a precedent that a sufficiently vaguely worded act of Congress can be used to invalidate a constitutional amendment. I doubt the congressmen who voted for the Amnesty Act intended it that way.