A VERY IMPORTANT writing.
In my opinion, THIS “memo” should be added to the Federalist Papers.
https://wendyrogers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Memo-Re-Decertification-092321.pdf
The State’s Legislature can decertify ANY election under their Article II power and it cannot be interfered with by either the Judicial or Executive Branches.
They don’t have to “pass” a bill/law (which would require signature of the Executive, BTW.)
This needs to be read in it’s entirety and SLOWLY by all Citizens of the US.
Here is the most memorable (for me) quote, as it quotes the Federal Judicial >>Gold Standard<< case:
BQ As “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without
effect . . . effect should be given to all the words it uses.” Marbury v. Madison EQ
Puts a knife in the 2A argument, too.
Ping to you.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3996270/posts?page=1913#1913
Please pick holes and let us know of those you find.
Thanks
Without studying the citations, I have two thoughts on this ...
First, should a decertification be handled by a court, the outcome of the court case is whatever the whim of that judge happens to be.
Second, the fact of decertification does not, of its own, compel Congress to do anything at all. In other words, a decert is a “so what” event. Much like deciding after an execution that the defendant was innocent, he’s still dead, and “so what” if the system decides to announce his innocence. Arizona can decertify, and the only “mandatory” ramification is the court of public opinion.
Guaranteed that if a legislature asserts its rightful authority and decertifies, there will be other bodies who come in and assert the opposite. In other words, courts will render opinions that say decertification is illegitimate, that the findings of fraud are flawed, etc. It’s a battle in the court of public opinion, and the institutions are fundamentally dishonest. Public is left confused, and that I suppose is what the institutions want.
For the sake of argument, if enough states decertified to put the presidential election into question, the onus is on Congress to “deal with it.” Legislators don;t ever want to deal with it, hence all the “the election was perfect” rhetoric.
Nevermind all the unconstitutional usurpation, e.g., governors and election boards taking legislative power.
I’m of the mind that the government is illegitimate. I don;t expect honesty or integrity from it, in fact, I expect the opposite.
The state constitutions give broad authority to the People to recall all publicly elected officials.
Initiative, referendum and recall were the results of the Progressive Movement in the years after the Civil War. States admitted during the Progressive Era usually had these items written into their state constitutions at admission. Older states often had similar provisions added to their state constitutions during and after the Progressive Era, but not all.
These provisions are not applicable to federal officeholders, even though some state constitutions say so, and some of the original 13 states had provisions for the legislature to impeach, convict and remove both state and federal officeholders.
For federal officeholders, one must refer to the federal district court's decision in the Frank Church case in 1967. The good citizens of Idaho decided to recall Sen. Church due to his stance on the Vietnam War using the recall provision in the Idaho Constitution. The federal district court ruled that federal officeholders -- senators and congressmen -- cannot be removed by state recall provisions because the US Constitution has no reference to them. Only death, resignation or expulsion by two thirds of the House of Congress in which the member resides can remove a federal officeholder.
No higher federal court was willing to hear the case, and the lower court decision stands as settled law. It was most recently quoted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2013 when the good citizens of that state attempted to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. The New Jersey Supreme Court even forbade the gathering of signatures for a recall petition, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
"Fraud vitiates everything," is a statement from a US Supreme Court decision in the 19th Century pertaining to a land case. Can that principle be extended beyond land cases? That's something for the Supreme Court to decide.
Can the Arizona Legislature decertify the election of presidential Electors due to fraud? Certainly. That would only mean that a footnote would be attached to Arizona's electoral votes for the sake of the history books.
If enough state legislatures decertify, could the original vote of the Electoral College be reversed by a new meeting of non-fraudulently chosen Electors? That would go outside the Constitution because it would provide a new way to remove a President and Vice President outside of impeachment by the House and trial and conviction by the Senate.
My own guess is that the US Supreme Court will have to make a decision or once again attempt to dodge it by refusing to grant cert for one reason or another. "Staleness" might be the argument for a refusal to hear such a case.
More interesting is the possibility that one or more congressmen and senators from Arizona could be declared by the Arizona Legislature to have been fraudulently elected. It would tip control of one or both Houses of Congress, which would make it a life or death affair for the Democrats. Each House has the power to decide whom to admit in such a contest, and I would expect the Democrats to fight tooth and claw to prevent losing control of a House.
Very powerful. If the Arizona Legislature doesn't decertify, I'm going to be camping on someone's doorstep.
AZ memo bttt