Restoring Trump may start with decertifying one "elected" 2020 U.S. Senator

Dr. Franklin | July 20, 2021 | Dr. Franklin

[Dr. Franklin]

Challenges to the presidential electors for GA, MI, NV, and WI all failed when the House members making the objections failed to gain the support of a single U.S. Senator. Together these states comprised 48 EV, which was more than enough to flip the election result. But what if a duly elected U.S. Senator was unable to participate in that process because a fraudulent pretender was wrongfully certified in his/her place? Would that make the entire Jan. 6-7th certification of Joe and Ho's "victory" null and void in either a quo warranto action, or reopening of that certification by Congress?

[rodguy911]

You sound like a dem wrong most of the time.....Trump knew everything that was going on during the fraudulent election. He let it happen so he had incontroverible evidence which he has. Even if scotus won’t hear it the military will and he will be reseated as potus long before the next mid-term election in 2022.

[Dr. Franklin]

If the legislatures have "shirked their responsibility" by having executive branch officials certify election results, then doesn't this mean that those responsibilities have effectively been "shirked" as soon as a legislature passes a statute that says the presidential electors are to be determined by popular vote?

Not at all. Most states award presidential electors on a winner take all basis. In Maine and Nebraska votes are based on congressional districts. Now if the SoS or governor of one of these states were to have decided that because of Covid he was going to award the state's EV on a winner take all basis, that would be contrary to statute. That's not executing the statutory law. How are executive orders contrary to statutory law negating signature requirements on mail-in ballots, creating drop boxes, ignoring chain of custody requirements, etc any different?

In other words, what's the difference between having the legislature certify the result of a popular election for presidential electors and having the legislature appoint the electors directly? (I don't think this would be a bad thing, by the way.)

It's about the plenary power of the state legislatures under the U.S. Constitution to appoint the electors, and also about accountability to the state's citizens. What we've seen is that massive fraud in large cities was determinative in the past election, and maybe also in state elections preceding it. They likely cheated to get Dem executive branch officials "elected" in swing states with Republican dominated legislatures in 2018-19. It's harder to rig state legislative elections in enough districts to make a difference than it is to just stuff the ballot box in a few large counties to steal statewide elections for governor, AG, SoS, etc.

I would like to see the Constitution amended to require the lower house of the state legislature, (except Nebraska which doesn't have one), to certify the election results. That would end a lot of nonsense, because voters could hold people accountable better. This is all part of the larger problem of legislatures keeping laws vague and fuzzy, which feeds the modern regulatory state marked by an over abundance of executives making regulatory rules, and courts involving themselves as well. The election was tainted with that as well.

[fatman6502002]

Stop listening to Q. Q is not an oracle, Q is a fraud.

And you are just grasping for straws.

[rodguy911]

Do a little research once in a while. You might learn a few things that you obviously don't know.

and get off the couch now and then....

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Per the 22nd Amendment no person can be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
Sure he was elected but not instated. Fraudulent election means the 2020 election would not count.

I honestly don't understand your argument. Are you saying when theft is committed it's OK as long as they get away with it?

Personally I like the idea if Trump was speaker of the house and they proven the election is fraudulent then the speaker would assume office.

[fatman6502002]

Yadda yadda yadda.

This is about you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fdAFmtq-o8

This is about me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8pVZ5hTGJQ

[Dr. Franklin]

I posted the following in GAB last night. I want to credit you for the analysis of the ‘unqualified’ resident and VP due to fraud, and the Constitutional solution as a result.

As a published academic, I must insist that my theory published here should be credited to "Dr. Franklin on FreeRepublic" by Tucker, Hannity, Bannon, Alex Jones, or any other talking head wishing to discuss it.

[Alberta's Child]

How are executive orders contrary to statutory law negating signature requirements on mail-in ballots, creating drop boxes, ignoring chain of custody requirements, etc any different?

It really depends on the state. In some cases (I believe PA may have been one), there are laws on the books that give the governor a wide range of powers in the event of a self-declared "emergency." Those laws never should have existed in the first place. The executive orders in question stood up to legal challenges because they apparently met all the legal requirements under the letter of those laws.

That's why I said the state legislatures should have cut the whole farce off at the knees by simply approving their own slates of electors after Election Day and before the Electoral College certification on December 14th.

I would like to see the Constitution amended to require the lower house of the state legislature, (except Nebraska which doesn't have one), to certify the election results.

I like my idea better. Let the legislatures appoint the electors, period -- and put an end to this idiotic idea that every moron who can breathe on a mirror should have a say in our elections.

[DoodleDawg]

Sure he was elected but not instated. Fraudulent election means the 2020 election would not count.

But if Trump is installed as President this year or next year or some time before 2025 then it's proof that he actually won last November. So he would have his two elections that the 22nd Amendment allows. Right? I honestly don't understand your argument.

My argument is that the Constitution is specific and we're supposed to be the ones who respect the Constitution, though that argument is getting harder and harder to make lately.

Personally I like the idea if Trump was speaker of the house and they proven the election is fraudulent then the speaker would assume office.

Fantasy seldom becomes reality.

[Candor7]

Hell, with the dissatisfaction with the Vichy Republicans, by conservatives like me, you may never see another Republican president period. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Exactly.

And you are nmopt alone.

There are over 70 millin of us and that scares the bejasus out of the readial left.

So much so that they are now trying to extend the pandemic emergency rule right into Nov.3 2022 for a cheat repeat.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"22nd Amendment allows. Right? "
incorrect. the full term wasn't received. If you rented a car for 4 years and paid for the 4 years. Though you received the car for six months. you rented the car true but you didn't get what the contract states.

[Nailbiter]

flr

[Dr. Franklin]

Just as how the states have plenary power to decide the method of choosing Electors, Congress has plenary power to declare what "failure to qualify" means.

Since SCOTUS ruled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress could not expand the standing qualifications stated in the Constitution, it is doubtful that Congress can expand the qualifications in the constitution for president beyond what they are. The exact language in the Twelfth Amendment is "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify..." At first glance, it would appear to mean they elected a president who did not meet the constitutional requirements of office. However, that is contradicted by what follows. My interpretation of that language is that it refers to a presidential election thrown to the House which is deadlocked, but the Senate elects the VP.

And what comes with plenary power is the wisdom and consent of the governed to exercise it. If the fear is of a tyrannical Congress that declares all opposite party candidates to have failed to qualify, the people would not support that abuse of power. But if the states methodically prove that a coordinated, systemic plot to undermine election integrity resulted in the wrong candidate winning,

Congress clearly has the power to adjudicate contested Congressional elections, subpoena evidence and witnesses, etc., but I read no such Congressional power in the Twelfth or Twentieth Amendment. You need to invoke the Guarantee Clause to support this argument IHMO. The problem remains that the state legislatures hold the plenary power in appointing presidential electors, but they have been extremely hesitant to revoke the certifications of their governors or other executive branch officials.

I believe the people would support Congress using whatever constitutional tools are at its disposal to correct the situation.

And if SCOTUS decides to finally address the matter that the presidential electors were not certified in accordance with the legislature's standing statutory law, the people will support that as well. Congress as a political institution isn't very popular.

[Dr. Franklin]

It really depends on the state. In some cases (I believe PA may have been one), there are laws on the books that give the governor a wide range of powers in the event of a self-declared "emergency." Those laws never should have existed in the first place. The executive orders in question stood up to legal challenges because they apparently met all the legal requirements under the letter of those laws.

In PA the legislature passed a law for mail in voting that clearly violated the state constitution. Now perhaps they can do that for presidential electors, but not for other offices...The state supreme court then decided to order an extension for those ballots contrary to statute, and the SoS issued a last minute order for "curing" improper ballots. In AZ they first watered down and then completely ignored signature verification, as they did in NV. In GA, the executive branch entered into consent decree agreements to violate statutory law in contrived lawsuits. In Michigan, a court ruled that the elections weren't conducted lawfully, but afforded no remedy, just an admonition not to do it again. In WI, the supreme court ruled that mail in ballots were wrongly sent out in mass, but made it impossible to disqualify them. The best explanation for why the election certifications were allowed to stand is that the legislatures failed to object.

That's why I said the state legislatures should have cut the whole farce off at the knees by simply approving their own slates of electors after Election Day and before the Electoral College certification on December 14th.

People need to hold them accountable for this.

I like my idea better. Let the legislatures appoint the electors, period -- and put an end to this idiotic idea that every moron who can breathe on a mirror should have a say in our elections.

The whole lacuna, as the Brits call it, is that Constitution anticipated the legislatures appointing the electors, which they no longer do, nor wish to dirty their hands with touching, (unless it is ultimately required to elect a Bush). So they need to be forced to certify the elections as they are the ones voters can best hold accountable for any nonsense. Otherwise, state legislatures won't resume appointing presidential electors any more than women will quit the workforce, have large families, stay home and cook dinner for their husbands, and start wearing hoop skirts again. The Seventeenth Amendment won't be repealed either...

[Political Junkie Too]

Since SCOTUS ruled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress could not expand the standing qualifications stated in the Constitution, it is doubtful that Congress can expand the qualifications in the constitution for president beyond what they are.

Generally, I would agree with you, as I said in the first sentence of the post you replied to.

In it's plainest meaning, it would mean that it was discovered that a candidate was younger than 35, not a resident for 14 years, or not a natural born citizen, since those are the only qualifications cited in the Article II.

However, I would add an additional qualification to be President from the 12th amendment:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;

We can argue over whether that is a "qualification" or it is something else, but I'm clearly siding in the camp that it is a qualification. I'd be interested in hearing your argument that it is something else.

If it is a "qualification" to be President, and if the states have proof that the results of their elections were corrupted to the point that they can no longer stand behind the outcome, then that becomes evidence of "failure to qualify," no matter how long it took for the fraud to be discovered.

That is... unless you have some other reason why "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President" is not a qualification to be President.

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

incorrect. the full term wasn't received

It doesn't matter. The Constitution says that you can be elected twice. It says nothing about term durations or anything like that. If Obama had been elected to a second term and resigned 8 months in due to health reasons, he could not run for another term once he recovered. If Trump is somehow returned to office before 2025 then that's an acknowledgement that he really did win the 2020 presidential election. That gives him his two wins.

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Constitution says that you can be elected twice"
2020 election was fraud. Correct?
States can and will pull their electorate.
2020 election will be invitiated.
No one was elected in 2020.

[DoodleDawg]

2020 election was fraud. Correct?
States can and will pull their electorate.
2020 election will be invitiated.
No one was elected in 2020.

So you are saying that there is no way Trump can be sworn into office this year or any time before January 2025? Because if he is then he is the actual winner of the 2020 election and that's his second time. Can't run again in 2024.

[Dr. Franklin]

We can argue over whether that is a "qualification" or it is something else, but I'm clearly siding in the camp that it is a qualification. I'd be interested in hearing your argument that it is something else.
If it is a "qualification" to be President, and if the states have proof that the results of their elections were corrupted to the point that they can no longer stand behind the outcome, then that becomes evidence of "failure to qualify," no matter how long it took for the fraud to be discovered.
That is... unless you have some other reason why "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President" is not a qualification to be President.

As used in the Twentieth amendment "shall have failed to qualify" means not yet elected, e.g., didn't get enough votes in the contingent election in the House. Should Congress later learn that someone was certified POTUS in error, then they might declare a pretender's qualification (election) null and void. So even though it appeared that someone had been elected, subsequently Congress might adjudge that wrong.

That gets in to the whole "political question" bit that SCOTUS tends to avoid. However, IMHO, too many of the judicial decisions thus far regarding the 2020 election were determined by a desired outcome, and not by following the law. I suspect that SCOTUS would weigh in favor of the Biden regime, if states start decertifying Biden's electors, but don't flip them to Trump due to the fraud. That would require more states to decertify electors to get to the point that it delegitimatizes the current Biden regime. It's the whole issue of requiring a majority of possible EV vs. a majority of EV counted, and I expect Roberts and SCOTUS to go with the latter if it becomes an issue.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I just gave two logical ways. NO ONE won 2020 election if it was proven fraudulent.
1. proving 2020 election was fraud. The which would have to go through the courts.
2. Trump elected as speaker of the house.
3. The states legislators resolve this matter as they hold the contract (constitution)