Pennsylvania GOP Introduces Resolution to Dispute Election

Newsmax ^ | 30 Nov, 2020 | Brian Trusdell

[MtnClimber]

Home | Politics Tags: 2020 Elections | Supreme Court | pennsylvania | general assembly | appoint | electors | contested Pennsylvania GOP Introduces Resolution to Dispute Election a graphic illustration showing a ballot box with pennsylvania 2020 and mail-in ballots flying into the ballot box (Dreamstime) By Brian Trusdell | Monday, 30 November 2020 10:38 PM

Short URL|Email Article|Comment|Contact|Print| A A Republicans in the Pennsylvania General Assembly formally introduced a joint resolution Monday declaring the general elections results in dispute and reserving the power to designate presidential electors for the Electoral College.

The introduction was the latest step in a process begun last week by state Sen. Doug Mastriano to reclaim the authority granted in the U.S. Constitution to appoint the electors to the Electoral College.

The six-page resolution outlined the reasons for contesting the results, specifically accusing the officials in the executive branch of changing election law by allowing for absentee ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day to be counted and the "partisan majority" on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of allowing it.

It also said mail-in ballots were allowed to be corrected in heavily Democrat counties and were permitted to be counted without signature verification.

"A number of compromises of Pennsylvania's election laws took place during the 2020 General Election," the General Assembly said in a statement quoted by The Epoch Times.

[Eagles6]

"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.

Article II, Section I of the US Constitution

[romanesq]

Let’s not get crazy with the “Frankfurt School of Election Theft” Dr. Franklin.

We need to take more concrete steps. The Wisconsin filing today on behalf of President Trump’s legal team was an excellent development.

[Dr. Franklin]

SCOTUS has never weighed in on such a matter because no state legislature has tried to "pass" something while not in session.

But it has. See below:

The state does not act by its people in their collective capacity, but through such political agencies as are duly constituted and established. The legislative power is the supreme authority, except as limited by the constitution of the state, and the sovereignty of the people is exercised through their representatives in the legislature unless by the fundamental law power is elsewhere reposed. The Constitution of the United States frequently refers to the state as a political community, and also in terms to the people of the several states and the citizens of each state. What is forbidden or required to be done by a state is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist. The clause under consideration does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that "each state shall," and if the words "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/146/1/

Because they aren't in session, they won't have committees, can't have quorum, can't have a floor vote, etc...

Each house need only sit as a committee of the whole, with a bare majority in each house all that is required according to the Electors Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. Anyone who doesn't like can take it to the federal courts, where they will lose.

[Dr. Franklin]

Let’s not get crazy with the “Frankfurt School of Election Theft” Dr. Franklin.

Everything about this election has been bat sh_t crazy. If the fraud stands, then the Republic has failed. The stakes are quite high. Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators, Baltimore's mayor and chief of police, newspaper editors, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus there. He is on Mount Rushmore. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

[WASCWatch]

Thanks for saving me the time to respond to his ignorance.

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

Thank you!

[windsorknot]

PA needs to seriously address the problem because the integrity of this and future elections depend on it.

[Boise3981]

You're just ignoring LARGE sections of that paragraph. That case itself says that the legislative process - as designed by the legislature and enshrined in the state constitution - it supreme to even the legislature itself.

It says the legislative power is the ultimate power within the state except as limited by the constitution of the state. So when the state constitution - created by the legislature - says that a governor's signature is required for a law to take effect, then the legislature can't just take it back later. A law changing how the electors are distributed would require a governor's signature according to the state constitution (as created by the legislature).

Further, when the legislature itself creates laws that say "The legislature's session will expire on 11/30 at 11:59pm" and that it can only be called back via a special session called by the governor... then the legislature can't just meet at the holiday inn in December and "pass" something.

And that's before we even get to the practical difficulties of the fact that a majority won't want to show up and pass a resolution.

The legislature themselves has created the rules and constitution that ended their session on 11/30. They can't just change that because they feel like it. The SCOPA would certainly not go along with it, and since this is state law/state constitution there's no federal role here.

You're drastically misreading that case.

[Dr. Franklin]

Sorry you can’t understand English.

[romanesq]

We have a process and one POTUS can and will win. So, follow it by first reading the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Then you can follow up with the 50 page Congressman Kelly filing with SCOTUS from PA too.

Knowlege, not rumor is power.

[Dr. Franklin]

The problem of the destruction of the Republic has solutions at multiple levels, the courts, the legislaturs, and state militia. None should be ruled out. The stakes are very high.

[romanesq]

Martial Law talk is demented.

[Dr. Franklin]

Martial Law talk is demented.

The point is that when a conspiracy is present, all options are on the table to combat it. The president wouldn't need the Insurrection Act to call in Federal troop, just to deny the state governor the use of state's National Guard units. The state militias would take car of the rest.

[Dr. Franklin]

The foundation of the Republic is one person, one vote. If that foundation is destroyed, the social contract is broken. All options would be on the table to restore the Republic, including how it was founded.