President Trump Stated That He Can Contest The Election Via Constitutional Means During A Rally Before The Elections – He Has Two Steps First The Courts, Then The House

Trump appeared to be referring to what is known as a contingent election, in which the House of Representatives chooses the next president if no candidate wins an absolute majority of votes in the Electoral College — an outcome that would be more likely if the results in key states were in dispute.

-Prez Trump has clearly discussed and been briefed on a strategy to contest the election via Constitutional means, first through the courts and then through House, saying at a Sept. 26 rally in Pennsylvania: “And I don’t want to end up in the Supreme Court and I don’t want to go back to Congress either, even though we have an advantage if we go back to Congress — does everyone understand that? I think it’s 26 to 22 or something because it’s counted one vote per state, so we actually have an advantage. Oh, they’re going to be thrilled to hear that. I’m sure they’re trying to figure out, ‘How can we break that one?’”

Trump is correct that Republicans currently control 26 state delegations and Democrats 22, with two effectively tied — although the vote occurs after a new Congress is seated in early January, so those totals could change and the margin could be even bigger.

A Twitter account called Maximus Uncensored decided to describe the possible path to retaining the Presidency!

-The Trump Campaign, RNC, various state GOP Parties, third party organizations, are filing county, state, and federal lawsuits.

A Republic, not a Democracy. -The primary objective is to strategically get several ballots invalidated.

-However, a secondary objective is to publicly expose “corruption” in these cities to both STATE reps and US House and Senate Leaders. This is crucial. -While keeping the 73 million Trump supporters engaged and working behind the scenes.

-There seems to be a success in this, as two polls show 60% of the US now believe “fraud” occurred and only 49% believe Biden won. These polls have a 37-32 D: R bias.

-Keep in mind, MSM “calls” are merely “projections” of how a state voted in the popular vote. Strictly speaking, they mean nothing.

-Win, or lose in court, the next step is the GOP State Legislatures (SLs) in PA, MI, WI, AZ, and GA.

A Republican, not a Democracy. -On December 14, 2020, Certified Electors from each state, cast their ballots for the President and VP. What many do not realize is they vote in their home state and their vote is sealed and NOT “counted” until January 6th. Crucial point. -Now, the SLs have the Constitutional authority (under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and 3 U.S. Code § 2 and § 5) to appoint their own slate of Electors, loyal to President Trump, if they deem their state’s “POPULAR VOTE IS CORRUPTED”. -In other words, the State GOP Legislature of Georgia, for example, can “conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted” and appoint a “competing slate” of electors, loyal to President Trump. For example, 20 Biden Electors from PA & 20 for Trump.

A Republic, not a Democracy. -The precedent for this is the 1876 Election when SC, LA, FL, and (1 EV from OR) each sent competing Dem and Repub Electoral votes, sealed, to the archivist in D.C.

-On January 6, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” -That means that in the case of disputes about competing for electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. This is supported by 3 U.S. Code § 15. Hence, Trump wins. -This is a de facto check on the Electoral College, which few realize because it only happened in 1876.

A Republic, not a Democracy. -If at that point, nobody gets to 270, the 12th Amendment stipulates, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.” -Currently, Republicans have a state delegation majority with 26 (likely 30 in the new Congress) out of 50. Ergo, Trump wins.

-Moreover, Politico reports, “In private, Trump has discussed the possibility of the presidential race being thrown into the House as well, raising the issue with GOP lawmakers, according to Republican sources” such as McConnell, Graham, McCarthy, etc. -This would explain Sen. McConnell’s resolute backing of President Trump. It is clear, McConnell, who is shrewd and believes in raw power, knows POTUS is on solid Constitutional ground. With our help, he will hold the GOP Caucus in line. – In a contested 2020 election, like the Election of 1876, the Republican Senate and Democratic House would disagree on which electors to accept. This is called a “disputation.”

A Republic, not a Democracy. -Under the Constitution, there exists no mechanism to resolve a dispute in which the two houses of Congress cannot agree upon a certified set of electors, and there is no Constitutional role for the courts, including the Supreme Court. This is another crucial point. -Hence, Trump’s Sept. 26th references to FIRST the COURTS, then the HOUSE (see above).

-The House and Senate GOP (McCarthy & McConnell) shall argue under the language of the 12th amendment, the President of the Senate—Vice President Mike Pence—has the sole discretion… ….to break a deadlock between the Senate and the House, and to either accept or dismiss disputed electors.

-Republicans will point to the historical pedigree of the VP’s position, observing that the GOP made the same argument during the election of 1876. -Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate to act as the arbiter of any disputes and break deadlocks. -In fact, within Pence’s powers, he could either accept the competing slates of electors submitted, or dismiss them as disputed, and not have them counted. A reduced total still delivers Trump a victory BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES BIDEN OF 270. This is another crucial point. -If 270 is not reached, then under the 12th Amendment, “the House of Representatives shall “choose immediately”, in this scenario, reelecting President Trump to a second term because, as stated above, the GOP controls the House Delegation majority.

So, what we need to do is KEEP CALLING, EMAILING, ORGANIZING, MARCHING, and FORCING the GOP at the State and Federal levels to appoint a Republican slate of electors for Prez Trump and SUPPORT HIM 1000%.

In case anyone is wondering about President Donald Trump’s plan re competing slates, he just claimed victory in PA again.

By doing this, he’s telegraphing to State GOP leaders, in his opinion “the popular vote is corrupted” and they must act.

I’m trying 2b objective in my analysis. Addendum Trump’s Constitutional Plan (See above):

-Dec. 14 the Electoral College votes, but on January 6, is when it is “counted”. -If one member of the House and one Senator dispute or “object” an electoral vote, or a state slate, both houses withdraw to debate the issue. -Now, 3 U.S.C. § 6 says “if there is “controversy” re an election, then the governor must, “as soon as practicable after such determination,” communicate, “under the seal of the State…a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made.” -This suggests that, if a governor is ignoring controversy, or a contested election result and not issuing a determination, and communicating it properly, s/he is breaking federal law.

-I believe this too is where objections re “certified” state electors will arise on Jan 6. -For example, the GA, AZ, and PA results, will likely be disputed by the Senate (R) because the govs of those states are AWOL, ignoring pleases for audits. Thus, their states’ results will be challenged as “unlawfully certified”.

-This will be resisted by the Dem House. -Now, under the Electoral Count Act of 1877, it is unclear if the House accepts a slate and the Senate rejects it, how to move beyond an impasse. What is clear is that tradition holds “The President of the Senate” is the tiebreaker. Ergo, Trump wins. -Therefore, if disputes are raised over MI, PA, GA, and AZ, for example, and the House (D) & Senate (R) are tied, and Pence decides to side with the GOP and throw out the slates (which he would), neither Biden nor Trump, could get to 270.

-The election results are rendered moot. -If that occurs, the 12th Amendment CLEARLY says the “US House” delegations would “immediately” choose the president, while the Senate picks the VP. -The GOP controls 26 of 50 US House delegations.

In any case, President Trump tweeted today that the fight has just begun so we gonna have to wait and see if these are the paths he will use to reclaim the presidency.

“Trump only has 1 constitutional path that the Supreme Court can’t stop - Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election” 🇺🇸

As a matter of reality, you are correct.

In fact —

- There was/is sufficient knowledge of, or reason to believe, or proof, either to know or believe, US election laws were flagrantly and pervasively broken, involving very real, coordinated, foreign access to tabulation influence and or inputs

- There is proof, or reason to believe, this is part of a greater “foreign and domestic” global socialist plan (which did involve at least 7 countries),

- There was foreign derived *SMOTE(GRU)/Smartmatic derived algorithms, and software, and hardware, which were indeed unlawfully involved/relied upon, (and regardless of tabulation), our national election was penetrable, even if not penetrated,

- Hundreds of millions of dollars did flow from CCP China illegally (at least), to impact and direct the outcome of this election, and high level Chinese officials habe admitted to, and broadcasted it

These violations are beyond the basic thresholds necessary to utilize “Martial Law” (limited at least), for the sake of our “national security”, and survival of our Constitution, liberty, and nation

- Numerous states (becomes a federal issue) did violate both Federal and State aligned election laws and processes, with the intent to defraud and steal the actual vote from their own legitimate voters (creating significant disparity/inequality between counties and states which were deliberately not allowed the same equality under the law), and have as matter of strategy denied all Constitutional redress and justice to both majority of voters, and their jurisdictions.

Trump has the moral duty and responsibility, as Commander and Chief, to utilize his Emergency authority, to protect the US Constitution and America citizens from otherwise total and indefinite loss of our just, honest, and lawful Constitutional election system.

What we have just experienced, is the greatest and most threatening, successful, nation ending, coordinated attack on the US Constitution and our nation, which we have experienced since 1812, or CV1.

“First of all, all four GOP Legislatures (PA, WI, GA, MI) have accepted Biden as President-Elect.”

Easy. One Congressman and one Senator agree to contest due to the unreliability of the vote counts and failure to follow the Constitutional mandate of manner of selection being determined by state legislatures. Next.

“ruling by Pence (and I do not think he would rule for Trump)”

Of course he will. There are good reasons to contest the selection of electors in PA, WI, GA, MI, and maybe elsewhere.

“will be appealed to the floor where the Democrats have a majority”

You have more knowledge and experience in the procedures, but I would expect that this would require Pence to accept the appeal. He will have the gavel, right?

What are the ramifications of not following the rules of order? Has the Supreme Court EVER interjected itself into procedural matters here?

“The one-state one vote rule in the House cannot come into play until Congress certifies that no candidate has a majority of Electors appointed.”

I think it is the opposite. We are looking at a scenario in which certification does NOT happen.

Relevant wording of the 12th amendment:

“and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

If any path leads to no candidate getting 270 electoral votes by the deadline, the House MUST vote. Looks like it is Pence’s call. The language says, “House of Representatives shall choose immediately”. I’m assuming that Pence presides. Correct me if I’m wrong.

You left out the relevant part of the Twelfth Amendment.

Your excerpt refers to what happens “if no person have such majority.” But what is “such” majority? That refers back to a phrase in the first part of the sentence, immediately before your excerpt: “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”

Note that — not the number that could have been appointed, but the number actually appointed. The number 270 does not appear in the Constitution. It arises solely from the calculation based on the number of electors appointed.

If, somehow, the appointments by PA, WI, GA, and MI were vacated, then the total number of electors appointed would drop from 538 to 476. A majority would be 239. Outside of those four states, Biden has 244 electoral votes, so he would still have a majority (unless there were at least 6 faithless Dem electors, which is very unlikely).

What has to happen instead is that some of those Republican legislatures (add AZ as well) have to appoint Trump electors. A few legislators have called for that. Most of the Republicans, however, seem unwilling to fight. If they were going to do it, they should and would have done it by now, i.e., before December 14.

“But what is ‘such’ majority? That refers back to a phrase in the first part of the sentence, immediately before your excerpt: ‘a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed’... Note that — not the number that could have been appointed, but the number actually appointed. The number 270 does not appear in the Constitution. It arises solely from the calculation based on the number of electors appointed.”

Well, I did consider that. As far as I know this would be uncharted territory.

“Clause 2 — Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

“Clause 3 — The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.”

It appears that the “majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” would include ALL the votes counted which is also the same number as ALL of the electors who were appointed and certified. My reading (and preferred reading) is that number of electors “appointed” is not reduced by some of them being rejected. Being rejected does not change that they were appointed.

Even Reuters made the same point, citing legal experts, that the specifics in this case have never been “stress tested”:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-contested-scenarios-expl/explainer-what-happens-if-the-u-s-election-is-contested-idUSKBN2781FS

Another problem is that it would not be the current Congress and Senate that makes these votes, but the one seated in January.

It is also unclear what would happen in the case of dueling electors (two sets from one state, one set from the governor and one from the legislature). The Constitution specifically says the legislatures certify, but the law gives preference to electors sent by the “executive” of the state.

My reading (and preferred reading) is that number of electors “appointed” is not reduced by some of them being rejected. Being rejected does not change that they were appointed.

It would depend on why they were rejected. A vote cast for an ineligible candidate (too young, failed the residency requirement, or not a natural-born citizen) would be rejected, but the elector who cast that vote was still one who had been appointed. In those circumstances I would agree with you.

In the hypothetical we're discussing, though, the reason for the rejection would be that the Nov. 3 vote was so messed up that the state's appointment of its electors couldn't be honored. The only reason to reject an elector's vote for Biden would be to reject that elector's appointment. With the appointment nullified or vacated, the would-be elector no longer counts toward the total. (I specified Biden votes. Suppose Congress rejects Harris votes on grounds of eligibility. Then Biden would still have a majority and would become President. Neither Harris nor anyone else would have a majority of the electors appointed, and the Twelfth Amendment would send the VP selection to the Senate. I don't expect that to happen.)

Another problem is that it would not be the current Congress and Senate that makes these votes, but the one seated in January.

Agreed.

It is also unclear what would happen in the case of dueling electors (two sets from one state, one set from the governor and one from the legislature). The Constitution specifically says the legislatures certify, but the law gives preference to electors sent by the “executive” of the state.

No, the Constitution does not specifically say that the legislatures certify. The exact language (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) is: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." In every state, the legislature has directed that the method is appointment based on the popular vote. The Constitution is silent on two questions: First, who in the state (if anyone) is responsible for certifying that the manner directed by the legislature has been followed? The federal statute adopted decades ago fills in this gap by designating the governor. As you say, this has not been stress-tested. It would be tested this year if any of the Republican-controlled legislatures vote to appoint Trump electors, but so far none of them have shown the will to do so.

Second, can the legislature change its directive retroactively? For example, could the Georgia legislature now meet and vote to adopt, for the 2020 election, the Maine and Nebraska procedure of choosing electors by Congressional district? Could the Dems who control the Maine legislature now switch to the statewide vote, thus taking away the one electoral vote Trump won there? This is purely hypothetical for this year but it could come up in the future.

It’s not the Congress-Congress. The reference is to the *delegations*. In this count, the GOP outnumbers the dems 27-22 (the article says 26, so I may be off).

That's incorrect. If both Courts and Republican legislatures fail to deliver for President Trump, then that's the end of the road for President Trump's reelection chances. Given the U.S. House Democrat majority, it will reject any Republican objections to the states' EVs during the Jan. 6 vote count, led by VP Pence, so Sleepy Joe Basement-Biden would become the official President-Elect on that day.

The House state "delegations" you mention will become involved only if the Jan. 6 EV count does not result in one of the candidates getting 270+ electoral votes. If neither gets 270+, then the House will meet separately to select the President based on state "delegations." But the House majority will ensure it never gets to that stage (SEE previous paragraph).

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.