SCOTUS ruled under Article III section 2; Controversies between two or more States.
You know what else is under Article III but in section 3?
Treason clause 1 and 2.
These cases are beyond SCOTUS jurisdiction
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="515" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="471" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
スレッド
会話
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
返信先: さん
Yep
引用ツイート
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
MSB
@BackMungo
·
返信先: @re5iGamさん
Fun fact: Firing squads are now available for Federal executions starting Dec 24 (Christmas eve) which Trump just made a Federal holiday as of today.
apnews.com/article/intern
29
215
788
返信を表示
返信先: さん
Fun fact: Firing squads are now available for Federal executions starting Dec 24 (Christmas eve) which Trump just made a Federal holiday as of today.
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="453"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
88
1,066
1,904
返信先: さん
Saw something interesting earlier. Today is the 11th, the Article is III (3). 11.3 first marker?
7
34
235
Was going to like your tweet but saw it had 17 likes so I’m just gonna keep it at 17 
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="679" height="250"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2
28
返信を表示
Absolutely nothing.
But it felt good right?!
Boom!
5
返信先: さん
SCOTUS rejected PA suit...then denied the Texas suit for lack of standing because it's not PA. 
6
4
26
The TX suit just repeats the same complaints already made in suits within those states. Those suits have been rejected on merit.
6
1
13
返信を表示
返信先: さん
said there’s lots and lots of video and sworn affidavits we can use in court & someone I know says WE have it all.
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="360" height="307"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="360" height="356"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="360" height="179"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2
14
91
返信先: さん, さん
Obviously this now involves foreign interference & those who have aided & abetted the railroading of the Constitution.
Great pick up.
3
6
97
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
SCOTUS lightweight Justices put on the scale did not weigh and in the sieve did not sift. I lost all respect for them.
センシティブな内容が含まれている可能性のあるメディアです。設定を変更
表示
1
14
33
返信を表示
返信先: さん
ok - so finally an explanation I sort of understand. so how does scotus rejecting open some new door to treason? if cases are beyond scotus jurisdiction then who's doorstep does it land on? explanations appreciated
9
4
35
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
Notice they didn’t indicate which section of Article III they were referring to, are they telling us something? 
2
2
36
返信を表示
返信先: さん
Was wondering that, was making my way to reading the article, thanks for the education
13
返信先: さん
This is why great lawyers get paid the big bucks.
And that's interesting, I always thought the highest court in the land (scotus) had to try people for treason.
The plot thickens.
4
12
88
返信を表示
返信先: さん
Incorrect analysis. Section 3 says nothing about jurisdiction. Treason cases involving citizens are tried in Article III courts.
3
10
返信先: さん
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="240" height="135"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs...
So what is the difference betweet Military Law and Criminal Law? Senator Lindsey Graham Questions Brett Kavanaugh Military Law vs Criminal Law
youtube.com
1
19
32
返信先: さん
最高法院對德州為首的諸多州提交的案子的裁決讓許多人失望
,認為一切都結束了。其實不然,大戲的高潮方正開始。高法是按Article III Section 2作的裁決。你知Article III Section 3是關于什麼的嗎?是有關叛國罪的,叛國罪歸軍事法庭管。介紹兩個視頻
twitter.com/re5igam/status
youtube.com/watch?v=SCO9hi
引用ツイート
re5iGaM
@re5iGam
·
SCOTUS ruled under Article III section 2; Controversies between two or more States.
You know what else is under Article III but in section 3?
Treason clause 1 and 2.
These cases are beyond SCOTUS jurisdiction
このスレッドを表示
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="273" height="360"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
3
6
18
結合今日時政，重溫今年四月份在推特上出現的這張“新冠病毒大流行”的藍圖，倍感軍管，戒嚴指日可待，這就是”計劃的流行病”的第五步！我的鄰居擔憂川普是否能連任，我說我更擔憂的是計劃的第六步：強制接種新冠疫苗。
以防真會發生十日黑暗和戒嚴，儲存些食物為上策。
youtube.com/watch?v=RN4C5Y
引用ツイート
冷眼向洋 Truth Seeker 
@ryxc1128
·
返信先: @stephonechowさん
一點不驚奇，完全是按計劃進行的。軍管是計劃的第五步。
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="508"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2
4
5
返信を表示
返信先: さん, さん
it's down to Mil tribunals now which Sidney Powel is the top lawyer for them
2
19
返信先: さん
As much as these bastards deserve what the laws prescribe, Trump will pardon all of them and love every moment of it. Keep in mind that accepting the pardon will be an admission of guilt.
1
返信先: さん, さん
its not treason to question election results
democrats scare me
you could go to jail for disagreeing with them
1
2
返信を表示
![画像](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="395"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)