Judge: Maricopa County Must Provide Ballots From 2020 Election For Audit

Palmieri Report ^ | February 26, 2021 | Jacob Palmieri

[gr8eman]

The only good news that will come is when the totalitarians are eliminated. They’ll never give up the con! Who’s going to send them to jail? The paid off judge?

[gr8eman]

Well...we should get a betting pool here on FR! Either the warehouse “burns down” or the judges “rule in favor of the commies”! It’s one or the other!

[semimojo]

Too many state legislatures were unwilling to use the power granted to them by the U.S. Constitution to simply vote the electors in compromised elections.

They don't have that right unless they pass a law via the process laid out in their state's constitution.

In every state the legislature has decided how to choose electors and they have to stick with that decision until they pass a new law changing it.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Here they are.

[nonsporting]

This is what we Zonies were waiting for. It’s a significant step forward.

I’m hoping Lt. Col. Waldren will be involved in the forensic audit of the Dominion Systems and Networks as well as Jovan Pulizter in Kinematic Artifact Analysis. We shall have to wait and see.

I have not heard any talk of the BOS appealing the Superior Court ruling to the State Supreme Court. I suspect they will.

Untold thousands have been working hard to see this through — Stop the Steal Rallies, Voter Roll Canvasing, Finchem’s AZ Legislature Election Review and aftermath, Lyle Rapacki and Prescott Valley eNews efforts to raise the visibility of this effort nation wide, phone calls and letters to our Congress Critters, numerous recall efforts (all 5 BOS members, turncoat Boyer’s betrayal on the AZ Sentate Contempt Vote, recall of AZ SOS Katie Hobbs, recall of Ice Cream Magnate Doug Ducey — send him packing back to Cold Stone Creamery)

[TakebackGOP]

That BOS is so corrupt. Maricopa County was stolen, and the Governor and BOS knew it was going to Biden. Even Fox News called it early on Election night.

[Dr. Franklin]

This is what we Zonies were waiting for. It’s a significant step forward.

I simply can't believe that a border state like AZ voted for open borders, and illegal migrant criminals roaming the state.

I have not heard any talk of the BOS appealing the Superior Court ruling to the State Supreme Court. I suspect they will.

We can fully expect that they will use taxpayer money to obstruct transparent elections.

Untold thousands have been working hard to see this through — Stop the Steal Rallies, Voter Roll Canvasing, Finchem’s AZ Legislature Election Review and aftermath, Lyle Rapacki and Prescott Valley eNews efforts to raise the visibility of this effort nation wide, phone calls and letters to our Congress Critters, numerous recall efforts (all 5 BOS members, turncoat Boyer’s betrayal on the AZ Senate Contempt Vote, recall of AZ SOS Katie Hobbs, recall of Ice Cream Magnate Doug Ducey — send him packing back to Cold Stone Creamery)

Sounds like a large number of POed citizens. This should have a consequence. How many people have died from this coup? Jefferson's quote about the Tree of Liberty comes to mind...

[Dr. Franklin]

They don't have that right unless they pass a law via the process laid out in their state's constitution.

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the power to appoint the presidential electors is granted by the U.S. Constitution to the state legislatures, not the states more broadly. Under the Supremacy Clause, that supersedes anything in the state constitution to the contrary. The point has been state repeatedly here. As long as the legislatures never attempt to fix a fraudulent election, we will never see that power confirmed by SCOTUS in an actual case. "I can't" never gets results.

[semimojo]

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the power to appoint the presidential electors is granted by the U.S. Constitution to the state legislatures, not the states more broadly.

No they haven't. Just the opposite, in fact.

As far as I know there isn't a case where they've ruled directly on the selection of electors, but there are several where they ruled on Elections Clause found in Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution. That section provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for . . . Representatives [in the House] shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

This is exactly the same formulation used in the Electors clause.

"In a 1916 decision, in Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrandt, the Court upheld a voter-approved disapproval of a congressional redistrict plan drawn up by the state legislature, concluding that the referendum process was a part of state legislating within the meaning of the Elections Clause. In a 1932 decision, in Smiley v. Holm, the Court upheld a veto by the Minnesota governor of a House redistricting plan framed by the state legislature. declaring that the Elections Clause only requires that the job be done by the method each state chooses."

More recently we have Arizona State Legislature vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission:

"Q: Did Proposition 106 violate the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution by removing the congressional districting power from the state legislature?

A: No. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution did not preclude an independent commission, created by initiative, from creating the map for congressional districts. Although the Elections Clause specifically mentions the state legislature, at the time the federal Constitution was ratified, direct lawmaking by the people did not occur. Since then, state Constitutions have been ratified that specifically place lawmaking power in the hands of the electorate in the form of an initiative, as the Arizona State Constitution did. Judicial precedent establishes that redistricting is a legislative function that must be performed in accordance with the state Constitution’s structure of lawmaking;"

The references to the state legislature in the US Constitution are really references to the state writ large. The state legislatures have to act in accordance with the state constitutions that created them.

There is no way any state would have ratified the federal constitution if they thought it allowed one branch of their government to disregard their constitution.

[Dr. Franklin]

No they haven't. Just the opposite, in fact.

You are confusing apples with oranges. Congress never appointed Congressmen, unlike Senators and presidential electors.

Yes, they have called the power of the legislatures to appoint the electors themselves “plenary.” See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 104 (“The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors”). McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892) noting, “whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. at 35. That was confirmed again in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 104 (“The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors”).

One explanation for SCOTUS's refusal to intervene in the presidential election is that the power to nullify the election results certified by the governors was with the legislatures. When they didn't object and intervene with their plenary power, the court declined to do so, as it was the legislatures' right. The legislatures did nothing. "I can't" is a very poor excuse for not even trying to exercise a right that SCOTUS made clear they have.

[Dr. Franklin]

Congress State legislatures never appointed Congressmen, unlike Senators and presidential electors.

[semimojo]

Thanks for that post. You almost perfectly prove my point.

Regarding the quote from Bush v Gore:

“The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors”

It uses 'the State' as synonymous with 'the state legislature', because in the context of the US Constitution it is..

As to the selective quote from McPherson;

"...whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time.”

it ignores the context of the Court's decision. The Court said:

"The legislative power is the supreme authority, except as limited by the constitution of the state"

which is exactly what I've been saying. The legislature has to do what it does within the confines of its states' constitution, which today means passing legislation, having it signed by the governor and subject to review by the state's supreme court if that's what the constitution prescribes.

[Dr. Franklin]

Wrong. The state constitutions can’t limit powers granted to the state legislatures by the U.S. Constitution. That’s due to the Supremacy Clause, which you persist in ignoring.
The truth is that these legislatures didn’t even try to exercise their power. Thus, SCOTUS let the results stand. When a legislature appoints the electors as they did at the start of the Republic, but SCOTUS says it was wrong, then and only then, do you have a precedent.

[semimojo]

When a legislature appoints the electors as they did at the start of the Republic, but SCOTUS says it was wrong, then and only then, do you have a precedent.

But I thought "SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the power to appoint the presidential electors is granted by the U.S. Constitution to the state legislatures, not the states more broadly."

Can you back that up? Everything you've cited so far says the opposite.

[Dr. Franklin]

I did. You can’t read.

[Dr. Franklin]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2

[ConjunctionJunction]

Jovan Pulitzer is doing a video on Arizona’s full audit and GOP political talk gobbledygook at 6 pm tonight Central time.

https://www.youtube.com/JovanHuttonPulitzer/videos

[Dr. Franklin]

Thanks!

[Dr. Franklin]

Jovan Pulitzer is doing a video on Arizona’s full audit and GOP political talk gobbledygook at 6 pm tonight Central time.

I just watched Pulitzer's video. Publicly, the politicians are saying they want to check all the ballots. Privately, they are telling him to only check a small fraction of them, or otherwise put limits on the timing, etc. He is getting feisty and insisting that it is all or none. He will check 100% or 0%. Even Republicans don't want all of the ballots checked. This should be interesting to watch.

[Dr. Franklin]

The link:
Fight Arizona and Call The Politicians Out! Do This Right or Don't Do It At All!