[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Ron Paul See other Ron Paul Articles Title: Vice President Pence Must Reject Swing State Biden Electors Absent Certification by State Lawmakers Vice President Pence Must Reject Swing State Biden Electors Absent Certification by State Lawmakers Governors and state administrators have trampled upon the exclusive constitutional power of state legislatures to decide the manner of selecting presidential electors Stephen B. Meister December 28, 2020 Updated: December 29, 2020 Late last month, I wrote on these pages that the Founding Fathers made a wise and prescient choice in setting up the Electoral College and vesting the state legislatures with exclusive authority to decide upon a states presidential electors. The multifaceted fraud issues that infect national elections (especially this one) arent easily and timely raised within the tight contours of a judicial case or controversy. Later, I wrote that lawmakers in the six swing states still in disputeWisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevadashould adopt reclamation resolutions reclaiming their exclusive constitutional power under the Electors Clause (Article II, Section 1) to decide the manner by which their states choose presidential electors. I argued that, absent such formal resolutions putting the two sets of dueling electors on equal footingeach of the six swing states and New Mexico saw Biden and Trump electors cast votes at the Electoral Collegeobjections to the Biden-pledged electors (formally certified by those states governors) would never pass both houses of Congress at the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress. That the objections to the Biden electors would not pass both houses was a given, in light of the Democratic majority in the House, and the cowardice so far shown by most GOP senators, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has abandoned President Donald Trump (not to mention any semblance of principles) despite the irrefutable evidence of massive voter fraud. However, the six swing state legislatures wont meet at a regular session until after Jan. 6, and they cant be called into an earlier special session without the say-so of the governors (all of whom are Democrat other than Georgias Brian Kemp and Arizonas Doug Ducey). Unelected secretaries of state and election officials (who are nothing but Democratic operatives) have certified their fraudulent election results without consulting state lawmakers. Thus, to adopt the reclamation resolutions I proposed, the lawmakers would somehow have to overcome their inability to call a special session without gubernatorial intervention, and then act in contravention of state law (though in compliance with the Constitution) in asserting their right to override the fraudulent certified election results and appoint Trump-pledged electors. Lawsuit Contends State and Federal Statutes Disenfranchising the State Lawmakers Are Unconstitutional and Void, as Applied Given this constitutional crisis, on Dec. 22, lawyers for the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society brought a lawsuit in the federal district court for the D.C. Circuit, making the case that the Electors Clause of the Constitution grants each states legislature the exclusive and non- delegable power and duty to determine the manner of selecting the states presidential electors. That is, federal and state statutes relating to the Electoral College have shifted the power to decide the manner of choosing a states presidential electors from the legislative branch of the states government to the executive branch (i.e., the governors) and even un-elected administrative officials (e.g., the Secretary of State). For example, federal statutesnamely, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 6establish a process where, in contrast to the exclusive power being vested in the state legislatures as mandated by Article II of the Constitution, presidential electors are designated by the governor, following a popular vote, without any post-election certification by the legislature of the state. Most state statutes follow this process. Thats why we see so many news articles reporting that the legislators of six disputed swing states claim there was massive election fraud, yet they seem powerlessironically, despite their exclusive constitutional powerto do anything about it. In short, not only have these federal and state statutory laws not faithfully implemented the Constitutions vesting of the state legislatures with exclusive authority to decide the manner of choosing electors, they have instead, and contrary to the Constitution, vested the states executive branches with such authority, to the exclusion of the state legislatures. The Exclusive Power of the State Legislatures to Determine the Manner of Choosing Electors Is Non-Delegable As I previously wrote, unlike men, all laws are not created equal. The U.S. Constitution reigns supreme. Thus, the Amistad suit contends that these federal and state statutes, as applied, are unconstitutional and as such void, and asks the D.C. federal court to issue a judgment declaring that the votes of the Biden-pledged electors from the six disputed swing states not be counted at the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. Of course, while the federal laws relating to the Electoral College were enacted by Congress, the parallel state laws were enacted by the respective state legislatures. Thus, to the extent these state laws do shift power to decide the manner of choosing electors from a states legislature to its executive branch, such a shift was previously approved by the state lawmakers themselves. Its for precisely this reason that the Amistad suit argues that the Constitution vests the state legislatures with both the exclusive and non-delegable power to decide the manner of choosing a states electors. That is, absent the constitutional non- delegability of the state legislatures power to decide the manner of choosing presidential electors, their previous enactment of state statutes conferring such power upon the governors would defeat the central claim of the suit. I agree with the Amistad lawyers on this score. As I previously noted, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 29-30 (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power [of appointing presidential electors] at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated. That is, to the extent state statutes purport to give away to the executive branch the exclusive power of the state legislatures to choose the manner of appointing presidential electors, such delegation (even though grounded in state statutes) is an unconstitutional abdication of the Electors Clause power, and therefore invalid. The Courts Cant Choose a States Electors, but They Can Adjudicate Violations of the Constitution and Law Given the exclusive and non-delegable nature of the state legislatures Article II power over the manner of appointing presidential electors, how can the courts, even the U.S. Supreme Court, intervene and decide who the true and correct electors for a given state are? Amistad claims they cannot. Thus, in footnote 55 to their complaint, the Amistad lawyers wrote: Is the U.S. Supreme Court the final adjudicator for certification of Presidential electors? The Plaintiffs answer is no; the respective state legislatures are the final determiner of post- election certifications of Presidential votes and of Presidential electorsand, in a non-delegable way. Yet the Amistad lawyers are seeking judicial intervention over an election matter by this very suit. And thats not a contradiction. Though the state legislatures are the exclusive body to determine the manner of choosing a states presidential electors, the courts can, indeed must, adjudicate violations of law, including when federal and state statutes violate the Constitution or when an individuals constitutionally guaranteed rights are infringed. Thus, the Amistad lawyers dont ask the D.C. district court to decide who the correct electors are for any swing state; rather they seek a court ruling that the federal and state statutes purporting to divest the state legislatures of the power to decide the manner of choosing a states electors are unconstitutional and void, as applied, and thatbecause there has been no post-election certification by the state legislatures of the Biden-pledged electorsthe votes of those electors may not be constitutionally counted by Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, at the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. Said differently, the Amistad suit does not ask the court to adjudicate election results, only that certain federal and state statutes violate the Constitution, and that the resulting election process was constitutionally defective, and yielded electoral votes that cant be counted (absent post-election certification). Similarly, the courts can and do decide cases where individual constitutional rights are infringed by election procedures, such as where equal protection rights of voters are infringed by such procedures. Indeed, that was the basis for the Supreme Courts intervention in the hanging chad Bush v. Gore cases, where different Florida counties considered the hanging chad ballots in differing manners, and as a result one partyand those individuals who voted for that partys candidatewere unconstitutionally favored other the other (and those individuals who voted for that other partys candidate). Zuckerbergs $400 Million Funding Allegedly Violated Equal Protection Rights of GOP Voters Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
Pennsylvania Certified Results Found In Error By More Than 200,000 Votes
Posted by Kane on December 29, 2020 4:18 am ...This is more than twice the difference between President Trump and Joe Biden. A group of Pennsylvania Republican Lawmakers released this statement today:... HARRISBURG A group of state lawmakers performing extensive analysis of election data today revealed troubling discrepancies between the numbers of total votes counted and total number of voters who voted in the 2020 General Election, and as a result are questioning how the results of the presidential election could possibly have been certified by Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar and Governor Tom Wolf. These findings are in addition to prior concerns regarding actions by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Secretary, and others impacting the conduct of the election. A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020 as recorded by the Department of State shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while DoS/SURE system records indicate that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates. The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for President of the United States. On November 24, 2020, Boockvar certified election results, and Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, stating that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.... https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/pennsylvania-certified-results-found-in-error-by-more-than-200000-votes/ "...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|