Replies

The Constitution is very clear that after Congressional review the election is over. No allowance for courts or any other determination.

Uh, where exactly in the Constitution do you read that? The Twelfth Amendment pertains to Congress witnessing the returns of presidential electors from the states. It does not pertain to fraudulently appointed electors or what to do when they are later discovered, and makes no mention of governors certifying elections. So what is not denied to a state, is reserved by the Tenth Amendment. Thus, the state, acting through the appropriate state officer, has the right to seek a remedy in the U.S. courts. By statute, the writ of quo warranto is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. If a state is a party to that action, Article III, Sec. 2 combines with the All Writs Act to enable SCOTUS to decide the case with its original jurisdiction.

“But they were not fraudulently appointed” is the argument that states will make. I believe the states win that argument.

And what to do “when they are later discovered” assumes that discovery is sanctioned by the state. It’s the same slight of hand used by those claiming (wrongly) that some states sent competing slates of electors. No, they did not.

If a state is a party to that action, Article III, Sec. 2 combines with the All Writs Act to enable SCOTUS to decide the case with its original jurisdiction

Do you think any State is ready, willing, and able to do that?