Zed posted:GTAngler posted:Zed posted:GTAngler posted:Zed posted:GTAngler posted:Even if they could, Granger followed the Constitution to a T.
Please explain how.
Read the Constitution. In particular, Article 161 Sub Paragraph 2 on page 130.
You might want to reread the constitution or get some one to help you understand what you are reading. These documents get complicated with all their paragraphs and proviso, etc. Also, refer to the chief justice recent written ruling or have some lawyer explain that to you. If you do not have it, Django might be able to get it for you. He seems able to find these.
I need help understanding? I said he used and followed the constitution to a T. Why don't you explain what Granger did wrong then? The only thing wrong here is the constitution itself.
You know that the alphabet starts at A and proceeds quite while until it gets to T. Same thing with the constitutional requirement. Reread what the constitution stipulates and what the Chief Justice ruled.
Please see my post about what granger has to do at the beginning of the process and when he can exercise his authority to unilaterally make a selection.
I asked you to explain. Apparently you still can't grasp what I am saying. I said he followed the CONSTITUTION as it is currently worded.