2610 - Will voter fraud be exposed before January?
No.
2019 push Voter ID based on verifiable intel (fraud).
2020+ safeguarded.
Q
***********
What verifiable intel will be used?
2018 intel of course.
This will probably cause the public to realize that the House results are fraudulent, and bring an outcry for voter reform, and the removal of all who were voted in as the result of voter fraud.
******************************************
I have some questions on this issues, that I’m not sure who to address them to. My line of reasoning goes like this:
1. The voter fraud does not actually occur until the results of the California election are submitted to Congress by California, and accepted by Congress to be validated legal results.
2. Once the California election results HAVE been accepted by the U.S. Government, they are lawful. If events discovered after the fact, prove that voter fraud has taken place, a crime has been committed.
3. The result of the crime is that the voters of California have been disenfranchised. This means that their voting rights have been negated.
4. By allowing the citizens of California to have their voting rights negated, the State of California has essentially declared themselves to outside the laws and the scope of the U.S. government, and the rights granted to U.S. citizens under our constitution.
5. Now comes the “tricky” interpretation of what course the U.S. government has against the State of California. Does that mean that the U.S. government can invalidate the votes for any and all federal office holders from the state of California?
Does this mean that until and unless the State of California cleans up it’s elections process, laws, voter roles, etc. the State of California has forfeited its rights to representation of all federal office holders in the State of California? Thinking long term, does that mean that California from now until the voter fraud is remedied and corrected, loses its U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, etc. representation in the U.S. Government?
If so, does that means that California electoral votes, would be in a state of forfeiture, that the U.S. government would now have a senate with 98 senators? 384 (51 in CA?) House of Representative members (I don’t know how many house members reside in California). Also, if there are 51 House members in California that have now been forfeited due to election fraud, the House now swings Republican again, since the democrats have a 40 member advantage in the coming congressional term. The Republicans again have both the Senate and the House! I have a feeling this might the accurate interpretation of what might happen.
If it does, good luck to democrats trying to win a national presidential elections without being able to having the electoral votes from California in play. This alone would seem to assure a Republican 2020 election victory.
If we look at the reconstruction period following the Civil War, it took some of the former confederate states years to re-enter the Union. The state of California might be in a similar predicament.
Comments?
:: what course the U.S. government has against the State of California. ::
See the “Southern Voting Rights Act”. Fedzilla takes over the State’s right to “run elections as they see fit”.
Would love this scenario.
Then the imposition of Federal regulation for all elections of House Members’ and Senators’ elections (voter ID, prior registration, absentee votes prohibited except for good reason). Maybe even hold Federal elections separate from local and state elections.
I like your theory and wondered myself if Cali voter fraud was dealt with would the house be R again.
Your comment regarding exclusion of Ca from representation due to fraud reminded me of the comment POTUS made in his stump speeches before the mid term.
He said from the deserts of Nevada to the something about oceans of the east coast-I forget his exact words here and his comment was like saying from sea to shining sea-America from coast to coast....
But California was glaringly and obviously LEFT OUT of that well known and often used phrase indicating all of America.
I have really been curious about that ever since I heard President Trump say that and I do wonder how things will shake out in the end regarding Cali and it’s abysmal state government and representation.
Yes, the “Watch CA” movie is not over, methinks.
No. The laws of California were followed, and according to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. v. US House of Representatives, the House has no choice but to seat. It’s a maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything it touches, but once an election is certified and not contested under that state’s election contest laws, the results of the election hold. The only recourse is to embarrass an elected official into resigning or indict the official if he is an active party to the fraud, perhaps forcing him to resign. Resignation would set off a special election to be called by that state’s legislature.
Does this mean that until and unless the State of California cleans up it’s elections process, laws, voter roles, etc. the State of California has forfeited its rights to representation of all federal office holders in the State of California?
No. Federal elections are partially controlled by Congress; for example, setting the date of a federal election. The state is responsible for the actual election. Failure of a state to handle its job properly does not translate into losing rights of statehood.
Thinking long term, does that mean that California from now until the voter fraud is remedied and corrected, loses its U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, etc. representation in the U.S. Government?
No.
If we look at the reconstruction period following the Civil War, it took some of the former confederate states years to re-enter the Union. The state of California might be in a similar predicament.
Not unless there is an insurrection, followed by civil war, followed by a presidential assassination, followed by Congress going crazy and ignoring the Constitution altogether.
Following the end of the war and Lincoln’s assassination, ten southern states were rolled into five military districts and placed under martial law. There is nothing in the Constitution about military districts, only about states and territories. This was blatantly unconstitutional, and insisting that these military districts ratify the 14th Amendment before their constituent states could be readmitted as states was unconstitutional on its face. Lincoln had fought the war under the principle that the Union was permanent, states could not secede at pleasure – and that Congress couldn’t throw a state out of the Union at its pleasure.
The Supreme Court could have addressed this anomaly and its attendant can of constitutional worms tangentially in 1939 in Coleman v. Miller, but with Appomattox only 74 years in the past and war on the horizon, the Court didn’t want to rip the scab off the Civil War. The Court held that in the heat of the moment, actions were taken that were not properly constitutional, but this wasn’t the time to address them.
For a federal takeover of California as you are suggesting, the state or its citizenry would have to take actions that would cause the President to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and Congress to suspend habeus corpus in accordance with Article I/Section 9 of the Constitution, in effect declaring martial law. That’s what happened after Fort Sumter.