(I hope everyone who can will make it to the rally in Washington DC!!!)
Not a single court has examined the merits of cases filed. Evidence is overwhelming and it just falls on deaf ears.
Could the deep state be this damn powerful? I mean multiple judges, state reps, election officials..you name it are simply ignoring the evidence.
The plan is for Pence to reject the electors from contested states, awarding none to Biden nor Trump. Trump wins.
CNN ran a story that Trump was bashing Pence as betrayer who wants him to lose.
Pence’s allegiance is to the Establishment. Trump has to give him an incentive to do the right thing.
Trump should promise to resign in 2027 making Pence -— President Pence. That’s an offer the Establishment can’t beat.
Zuckerberg must be destroyed.
Wait wait wait, if the Amistad suit does not ask the court to decide what electors but just to decide to not allow the electors from those states to be counted, then ALL the states whose legislatures who have delegated their responsibility could not be counted either. The difference here, thank God, is that these 7 states legislatures offered their own slate of electors. It seems the USSC would have to invalidate every state whose electors were chosen as they were originally at the founding, NO???
Oh, one more thing...
They would have to be willing to do it, of which there is not even a shred of evidence.
There is no requirement for the Governor to call a special session. Legislatures can do it on their own. The Governors have no role regarding federal elections. The Legislatures have sole and final authority.
In late November, I wrote on these pages that “the Founding Fathers made a wise and prescient choice in setting up the Electoral College and vesting the state legislatures with exclusive authority to decide upon a state’s presidential electors.[”]
No, the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to "direct" the "manner" in which states appoint their electors. Importantly, it also grants Congress the power to set the date on which states appoint their electors. Meister gets it right elsewhere in the article, but his conclusion suggests that he doesn't grasp the distinction.
Later, I wrote that lawmakers in the six swing states still in dispute—Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada—should adopt “reclamation resolutions” reclaiming their exclusive constitutional power under the Electors’ Clause (Article II, Section 1) to decide the “manner” by which their states choose presidential electors.
They have decided the manner by which their states choose presidential electors. What he proposes isn't to "reclaim" a power they've never lost, but to change the manner of choosing electors after the date Congress set for choosing them. If state legislatures could do that, then the grant of power to Congress to set the date for choosing electors would be meaningless.
That is, federal and state statutes relating to the Electoral College have shifted the power to decide the “manner” of choosing a state’s presidential electors from the legislative branch of the state’s government to the executive branch (i.e., the governors) and even un-elected administrative officials (e.g., the secretary of state).
I agree that federal statutes can't strip state legislatures of their constitutional power to direct the manner of choosing electors, and, as explained below, they don't. But how can a state statute, which is necessarily passed by the state legislature, ever violate the Electors Clause? Isn't the statute simply an exercise of the legislature's power under the Electors Clause?
For example, federal statutes—namely, 3 U.S.C. Sections 5 and 6—establish a process where, in contrast to the exclusive power being vested in the state legislatures as mandated by Article II of the Constitution, presidential electors are designated by the governor, following a popular vote, without any post-election certification by the legislature of the state.
He's wrong about both statutes here. 3 U.S.C. 5 does not establish any process for choosing electors. It simply provides a date by which a dispute regarding the appointment of electors may be resolved in the manner directed by the state legislature. This seems a pretty straightforward application of Congress's power to set the date on which electors are chosen. 3 U.S.C. 6 does not give the governor the power to "designate" electors. It simply requires the governor to transmit the certificate of ascertainment of electors to Congress, the National Archives, and other bodies. The Constitution requires the electors to transmit their votes to the President of the Senate so that they can be opened and counted in the presence of Congress. Congress plainly has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to make provide by law for how the votes are transmitted and to provide by law for how the President of the Senate and Congress can ascertain the identity of the electors.
And where in the Constitution does he imagine there is a requirement for "post-election certification" of electors by the legislature?
As I previously noted, in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 29-30 (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power [of appointing presidential electors] at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.”
The Supreme Court is actually quoting a Senate report there. That is not a holding by itself. Also, the Supreme Court also recognized in McPherson, "Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same day throughout the United States; but otherwise, the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive..."
Pence, who took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, must consider whether he would be violating his solemn oath of office, by violating the Constitution, if he counts the Biden-pledged electors in the absence of post-election certification by the swing state legislatures.
He is really off the rails here. The Constitution apparently not only empowers, but obligates, President of the Senate to require legislatures of "swing states" to make a "post-election certification" of electors before he will carry out his explicit Constitutional duty to open their votes so they can be counted in the presence of Congress. Wherever he found this requirement, it certainly wasn't in the Constitution.
Pence cannot accept or reject any slate of electors. As the presiding officer of a Joint Session, all he can do is entertain an objection from 1 senator and 1 congressman.
So he does that. What happens?
The two houses retire to debate the objection. In the event of a tie-—as best I can determine-—the officially submitted certified slate stands.
So the House will reject any but the certified slates. My guess, however, is that the senate will too. I do not see Trump getting 51 senate votes.
After AZ is rejected (it will be first), I suspect that there will be a motion to forego any further objections. This may be unconstitutional, but my guess is that it will pass.
I assume the suit will be dismissed for plaintiffs’ lack of standing, leaving the merits of this case non- adjudicated — just as no evidence of fraud has yet been adjudicated — leaving an opening for Pence to take his shot. Whether Pence would take it is another matter.
VERY GOOD ARTICLE!
(Though as far as I know there is no basis to claim the electoral role of the Legislature is “non-delegable.)
Without researching I feel confident that our Founders’ state Legislatures assigned the execution of their elections to the Executive Branch.
That is what Executives do!
And what our Founders thought Constitutional is what I think Constitutional.
And when the Constitution says “shall”, it means “shall”- so Pence can’t do anything but open “all” the votes.
Like the Constitution says- maybe he can do some other acts in the process that would help.
Anyway, well presented even though wrong.
And there was a point I thought was well-grounded in the Constitution- but don’t remember now LOL!
Pense
FReepers can get around the ET paywall by pasting the article’s URL into outline.com.
Laughable.
The lawmakers in these states decided the manner by which their electors are chosen when they crafted and passed their respective election laws.
Just because they don't like the results of this election doesn't mean they can ignore the laws they've previously passed.
Article contains one glaring error I spotted when skimming it over:
“However, the six swing state legislatures won’t meet at a regular session until after Jan. 6, and they can’t be called into an earlier special session without the say-so of the governors (all of whom are Democrat other than Georgia’s Brian Kemp and Arizona’s Doug Ducey). Unelected secretaries of state and election officials (who are nothing but Democratic operatives) have certified their fraudulent election results without consulting state lawmakers.”
Michigan’s SOS is an elected official and by state law passed by the state legislature, the person with the authority to certify the election. GA, WI, NV and AR also have elected SOS’s. Only in PA is the Secretary of the Commonwealth appointed.
I wouldn’t put much credence into this article.