Pa: Fill & Download for Free

My vote goes for the Maori Pa (Pā - Wikipedia).Made from mud, tree trunks and various other natural materials, the Pa fortifications were misleading and the British made fun of them until they tried to actually take one in battle.The simple yet meticulous construction easily withstood rifle shots, and even small guns. The British found out how costly it is to attack these ‘simple’ fortification. The Pa had a significant contribution to the fact that the many early Maori wars essentially ended in a stalemate.

Hello!The answer is unequivocally NO! PA Congressman Kelly and his enablers have nothing!This is a list of those congressmen aka the Treason Caucus who support Kelly’s lawsuit and who want the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the election in PA.The rogues’ gallery… And Ted Cruz aka the Da Vinci of Dislikability, offered, volunteered to take the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.So a sitting U.S. Senator from another state wants to argue the other state's law to overturn their election in a FEDERAL court. And this is the party of "small government and states' rights?"First, there's the obvious point: Even if this gambit somehow succeeds (spoiler: it won't), the worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed. In that case, Biden would still receive 286 electoral votes when the Electoral College votes on 12/14. He needs 270.Now, let's get to why the Kelly suit isn't going anywhere. First, it was dismissed by the PA Supreme Court based upon a state procedural bar. SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions that rest on such "independent and adequate" state rules..But even if we could get past that, and the Supreme Court were to decide to reach the merits at this stage (never mind that the PA Supreme Court didn't), it's worth stressing just how crazy Kelly's two substantive arguments are (and how little they'll resonate even with *this* Court).Kelly's suit is basically a frontal assault on “all mail-in” voting in PA. But to get to the SC, he needs federal objections. And he has two. The second one is just silly—that the PA Supreme Court's holding that his suit came too late and violates due process.Even if there was anything to this (and there isn't; due process doesn't mean you can sue whenever you want), that's not actually a basis to undo PA's certification; it's just an argument that the PA Supreme Court should have decided Kelly's constitutional claim on the merits.So let's get to that claim. At its core, Kelly is challenging "Act 77"—a 2019 law enacted by the (Republican-led) PA legislature that dramatically expanded mail-in voting. Critically, the PA Supreme Court has *already* held that Act 77 is *consistent* with the PA Constitution. https://www.pacounties.org/GR/Documents/Act%2077%20-%20Election%20Reform%20Bill%20summary.pdfKelly's argument is that Act 77 violates the U.S. Constitution because it violates the Pennsylvania constitution. But whether a state law violates the state constitution is up to the state supreme court, not SCOTUS. And the PA Supreme Court has already upheld Act 77.In that respect, this is the opposite of the (still-pending) challenge to late-arriving mail-in ballots. There, the argument is that, because the PA legislature didn't authorize late-arriving mail-in ballots, the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by doing so.Even if there is merit to that argument (which a majority of SCOTUS has never embraced), it's predicated on the idea that state courts can't override state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. But here, Kelly is challenging what the state legislature did.All the PA Supreme Court did was to hold that the state legislature didn't violate the state constitution in expanding mail-in voting. But the U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about how state courts enforce their own constitutions against state legislatures. Full stop.So to conclude:● It's not going to matter (PA isn't the tipping-point).● The Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to issue it.● The constitutional theory underlying the suit is the *opposite* of what the conservative Justices have been arguing for.The END…

Happy memespa wa pa, pa paoh wait wrong ad1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.You can be groomed to be a bride, but you can't be brided to be a groom