Posted on 07/19/2021 10:27:55 AM PDT by bitt
Attorney and legal scholar John Eastman joined Steve Bannon on The War Room on Monday morning.
Steve and John Eastman discussed Arizona Senate President Karen Fann’s OAN interview over the weekend. Fann suggested that the Arizona Senate does not have the authority to replace the electors in the state of Arizona.
Eastmen told Steve Bannon: “We can point to Section 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code that says when a state has had an election and has failed to make a choice on the day that was prescribed by law, meaning the choice that was made, the assumption is it was fraudulently given because of the illegal votes, the electors can be made on a subsequent date in such manner as the legislature in some state may direct.”
But there is a lot of work to be done before this could ever happen.
P
Yes, they DID.
A special session before the certification could have remedied this but Republican Gov’s and legislatures refused.
The Big Steal was BIPARTISAN!
Further in the Constitution you find the date that the preceding President was ‘termed out’. That date has passed. Soo the time for States to present Electoral College Electors has passed as well. What remains is quo warranto based on an election a state declares ‘UNLAWFUL’. Once declared unlawful, quo warranto (’by what authority?’) can be used to challenge Congressional representatives’ right to represent a state that declared their election unlawrul. That means the Senators in the runoff election, caused by an unlawful election, are subject to removal.
If the Arizona legislature wants to come out and officially state that their electoral votes were cast fraudulently, then nothing should stop them. But that isn’t going to change the results of the 2020 election even if every state did the same thing.
Talk, talk, talk. Type, type, type. In the end, yes, we will have to live with the results of a fraudulent election. Nothing substantive will be done. The fraud has been going on for several elections, and both parties are complicit.
we got even. you got your way; we killed those two lousy rinos in the GA senate runoff.
things are much better now.
So what if the electors could be changed? The ones that were appointed at that time already voted, and there is no legal procedure to permit a ‘re-vote” of the Electoral College. So even if you did appoint different electors, there would be nothing on which they could vote.
Literally the only way to have a “re-do” of the election would be to have that case heard by the Supreme Court, and have the Court then decide the Biden’s election was bogus. But in all honestly...I see absolutely no chance of that happening. Even if justices were to conclude there had been fraud, I think the strict constructionists/textualists would find that they did not have the authority to vacate it.
Any state that comes out months after the fact and claims that its electoral votes were cast fraudulently should immediately have its statehood revoked and revert to territorial status for a minimum of 25 years.
Eastman is the real thing.
BTTT!
Yes we know they can, we also know the feckless rinos will never do so
"legal scholar John Eastman"
Yes dipchit, I would say he has.
John C. Eastman is an American legal scholar who is a former tenured professor of law and former dean at the Chapman University School of Law.[1] A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Correct. A court can only determine if an election was LAWFUL or not. Only a state legislature can effect a change of election laws to correct it, with approval of Congress. If it can't be corrected, the state loses representation in Congress, as the Confederate states did after Civil War.
Ya think?
“Any state that comes out months after the fact and claims that its electoral votes were cast fraudulently should immediately have its statehood revoked and revert to territorial status for a minimum of 25 years.”
Hell yeah!!!
Anyone with a brain know the results of the 2020 election will not be changed. Aside from giving pundits something to blather about, the value of these audits is to convince people that fraud DID occur and to get the election laws changed at the state level.
I find it hard to believe that a “legal scholar” and former clerk of Clarence Thomas would ignore the plain language of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution … unless, of course, he’s just a hack lawyer who makes crap up and changes his mind depending on who his audience is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.