Replies

There are very few absolute mandates in the Constitution for presidential elections. One of them is that all presidential electors must convene in their respective states to cast their formal vote for President. Another is that this election among these electors must occur on the same day across the entire nation.

This provision was written into the Constitution specifically to avoid the scenario you describe: where a presidential election is held hostage by one or more states that can't get their collective heads out of their asses. The four legislatures you cite had plenty of time to hold votes and do their constitutional duty long before the December 14th electoral vote process. They didn't do it, and they are being blatantly disingenuous when they try to stall the process at this late date.

Now please cite where in the Constitution a governor has the power over the state legislatures to "direct" the electors.

In every one of these cases the governor didn't exert any power over a state legislature. The governor exercised power that was given to the governor by the legislature under the laws of each state.

The Constitution explicitly gives each state the authority to appoint the electors in a manner proscribed by its legislature. It doesn't mean the state legislatures have to approve the electors AFTER Election Day. The legislatures don't have to approve the electors at all. If the California legislature wants to pass a bill (and the governor signs it into law) that allows Kim Kardashian to appoint the state's electors in every presidential election, then she can do that for as long as she lives and there isn't anything anyone can do about it unless the legislature changes the law.

The four legislatures you cite had plenty of time to hold votes and do their constitutional duty long before the December 14th electoral vote process. They didn't do it, and they are being blatantly disingenuous when they try to stall the process at this late date.

Given the amount of voter fraud that had to be uncovered and given the amount judicial coverup, of the voting machines, and of the ballots, it would be "blatantly disingenuous" for Mike Pence not to understand that and to grant the majority leaders' requests.

Add to that, the state governors telling their state legislators, or at least the Democrat state legislators, that they could not hold sessions for a month, Mike Pence once again would be "blatantly disingenuous" not to understand that.

Now please cite where in the Constitution a governor has the power over the state legislatures to "direct" the electors.

The Constitution explicitly gives each state the authority to appoint the electors in a manner proscribed by its legislature.

The Constitution states that the "manner" that states appoint electors is "directed" by the legislatures. Cite for me the 2020 statute from each of those four states that directs the governors of those four states to appoint electors? And notice that I didn't ask for any supposed binding law from any previous session, because that would be unconstitutional.

The four legislatures you cite had plenty of time to hold votes and do their constitutional duty long before the December 14th electoral vote process.

It's my understanding that their state constitution requires the governor to call them into session, and if he refuses to do so, they have no legal power as a legislature.

So now i'm thinking you didn't do your homework before you made this statement above, or else you would have known this.

So what do you expect the legislature to do when their constitution requires an opposed governor to initiate the process?