Posted on 11/27/2020 11:17:14 AM PST by Dr. Franklin
Mastriano: “…So, we’re gonna do a resolution between the House and Senate, hopefully today. I’ve spent two hours online trying to coordinate this with my colleagues. And there’s a lot of good people working this here. Saying, that the resolution saying we’re going to take our power back. We’re gonna seat the electors. Now obviously we’re gonna need the support of the leadership of the House and Senate, we’re getting there on that. But we need to act like…”
Bannon: “Hold it, hold it, hold it. I think we got some breaking news here. You’re saying you’re going to get a joint resolution to actually go forward and, the Republicans control the House and Senate, to go forward to basically take the power back from the secretary of state and put it in the state legislature to put forward the electors?”
Mastriano: “That is exactly what we’re gonna do. And so, look, it’s gonna obviously be a struggle. We’re gonna hear the palpitations and you know the outcries of our Governor Wolf and Secretary Boockvar, whose resignation should have happened months ago and she shouldn’t have ever been confirmed. But you know what we have that power and we’re gonna take that power back because there’s so much evidence of shenanigans and fraud, we can’t stand aside and just watch this unfold around us. You know, it’s not about disenfranchising anybody, it’s making sure that every legal vote counted. And if there’s extensive shenanigans out there it’s up to the General Assembly to step in. So we have a fight on our hands and we’re gonna fight. We’re gonna take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.”
We're having two debates.
The law said the votes had to be received, not postmarked, by election day. If the legislature didn't give the SOS the authority to change that date then the ballots received after election day should be discarded.
I agree that the laws on the books should be enforced.
Others go further and say it doesn't matter what the law was, the legislature can do whatever it wants and give the electors to Trump, even though the vote in PA was for Biden.
I disagree.
Good. When they're not, which hundreds of individuals have so far alleged with sworn statements, a remedy should be considered. One potential remedy, due to possible executive branch inaction, or complicity, or judicial inaction or time constraints, is for the legislature to act according to the rights given directly to their branch of state government in the US Constitution. In the case of Bush v Gore, the Florida legislature was preparing to act in this manner as well. Not as a routine order of business, but as a necessity due to executive branch inaction, and time constraints.
Which I certainly your right, but you're giving the impression you're not interested in the claims of election fraud in the least. Many feel the USSC has tipped it's hand in how it may rule, citing the two decisions I linked in post #48. There also seems to be a potential majority of Constitutional originalists in the court now as well. Undoubtedly some case or cases will end there. My guess is by that time there will be even more evidence of fraud than we're seeing now.
So? That doesn't mean the action would have withstood SCOTUS scrutiny.
Even in the Bush v Gore decision Rehnquist says:
"History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."
Note that he refers to "the State" and not "the legislature" as the entity granting or retaining the franchise.
Everything in Bush v Gore supports the idea that the election laws in force at the time of the election need to be enforced.
In PA, that means Biden gets the electors.
Why did you stop quoting right there? According to 2 different sources I just checked, the very next sentence immediately after that is the following:
“There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”
You didn't include a link, so maybe your source didn't include this part, either?
“There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”
Actually, it's quoting another decision, McPherson v. Blacker, and it would have been piling on to include it because it only reinforces my point.
The court is using that quote to support its statement that
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors"
They're explicitly using "the State" and "the legislature" as synonyms in this context which is exactly my point.
I went back and looked at this, and it appears the opinion you referenced from Rehnquist was not the majority opinion for the decision. It was simply his lone and separate opinion, expressing his concurrence with the actual majority ruling opinion, which is the one I cited. Thanks.
No one, or no entity, defined in the USC can voluntarily give up their Constitutional rights and authority.
The Art. ii issue is revealing which Freepers hate the Constitution. It is pulling the state-ist thugs out of the wood work.
No, it was the per curium decision of the Court. In an earlier post I referenced Rehnquist because I mistakenly assumed he had written it since he was Chief Justice.
It looks like it was written by Kennedy and is indeed the opinion of the Court.
BS. The power was DEGALATED and it can be reassumed AT ANY TIME. Why do you hate the Constitution so?
People like you, evil people, that hate the Constitution should be booted from Free Republic.
is going to happen.
wait for it.
Wow, there is a lot of zotting he needs to be done around here.
they could try but the US constitution ASSIGNS that responsibility to THEM ONLY... and is very specific about it.
no more commie governors and judges running elections.
cheating new rules into the mix.
follow the US Constitution for presidential elections. State Legislators do it... they are not allowed to hand it off to the local dog catcher.
Ridiculous.
USSC will smack this down, post haste.. no later than tomorrow night, because PA will not be allowed to complete certification. will NOT>
end of story.
Maybe then people would pay more attention to who they elect to state government. I hope this is what happens. Why don't you read Federalist 68 instead of pounding the keyboard like a stupid deep state-ist monkey.
they do have the votes.
and arms will be broken.
just like anti trumpers get kicked from this site.
l
D1ckh3ad I watched live, I saw election observers get kicked out of the election processing fraud factories in Philly. I SAW IT. This elections is fraudulent and God help us if the Commonwealth’s legislature does NOT step in.
You don’t understand what I wrote. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it state what the U.S. Congress should do if it receives two slates of presidential electors from a state. So, they attempted to address that issue by statute. By statute, the slate certified by that state’s governor is presumed to be legitimate, BUT a vote in both houses of Congress can reverse that presumption. If the presumption is wrong, and thus unconstitutional, then the federal courts need to be involved in issuing injunctions, etc.
That right there MAKES NO SENSE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.