Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

January 6 – No Mike Pence Can’t Just Reject Electoral Certifications

January 6 – No Mike Pence Can’t Just Reject Electoral Certifications

Note the words in the Constitution: The President of the Senate “shall … open all the Certificates” and “the Votes shall then be counted.” Shall is mandatory, there is no discretion.

https://youtu.be/2nO7S2qS8y4

Senator Josh Hawley and numerous Republican representatives have indicated that when electoral certifications are set to be counted, they will object to the counting of certifications from several disputed states.

Hawley’s statement did not cite the authority for his objecting, I assume it is the 1887 law, The Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. §§3-21, which provides procedures for raising and resolving objections. (See this 2016 Congressional Research Service Report for a description and citations.)

As I pointed out before, this procedure is a dead end because electors certified by states are counted unless an objection is upheld by both houses of Congress. Since Democrats control the House of Representatives, there is no chance that an objection to a state certified for Biden would be upheld. Maybe there are other political reasons for invoking this procedure — Democrats did it in January 2005 to challenge Bush electors — but no one should think this will change the election outcome. Not even Hawley seems to think that, as his statement makes clear he’s seeking a debate on election integrity or lack thereof in the 2020 election.

That Hawley and Republicans are invoking the statute should put to rest the claim that some have raised that the statute no longer governs because one congress cannot bind a future congress. If that is the case then it’s actually worse for Trump (or any challenger) because the Constitution provides no means of objecting — the certified votes must be counted.

A claim has circulated widely in the past few days that Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, has the power and discretion to reject certifications. If Pence had such power and chose to exercise it, it would be over, but he doesn’t.

Here is the relevant language of Article II, Section I (after the 12th Amendment)(emphasis added)

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Note the words. “Shall … open all the Certificates” and “the Votes shall then be counted.” Shall is mandatory, there is no discretion. The certificates must be opened by Pence, and the votes must be counted (it’s unclear who does the counting, but the votes must be counted regardless). No Vice President (whether Mike Pence, Al Gore or future VP Kamala Harris) performing the function of opening the votes has discretion to reject votes. No Vice President has authority to accept votes presented through some extra-constitutional other process.

There is an interesting legal question of what would happen if a state authority presented conflicting votes — for example the legislature certified one set of electors but the executive branch certified a different set — but that has not happened here. No state authority has certified more than one set of electors. A bunch of legislators acting on their own getting together outside the constitutional certification process to announce electors is not presented for counting any more than if I got together with some friends and we delivered an envelope to Pence with our chosen slate of electors. Maybe if legislatures (not legislators) had so acted, we would have a legal conundrum, but that has not happened.

The Congressional legislation provides a mechanism for objections to be raised and resolved. Neither the constitution nor the legislation makes the Vice President king for a day.

The argument that Pence has such power has been circulating based on an article by someone named Alexander Macris (don’t know if it’s a pseudonym) which has been spread by Rasumussen Reports and in articles such as this at American Thinker.  Macris’ analysis doesn’t stand up to simple scrutiny — he bases his views on snippets from law review articles, but they are overstated and out of context, and in any event, law review articles are just opinions, they don’t have any legal authority and certainly don’t usurp the language in the Constitution or congressional legislation.

For example, he cites “Preparing for  a Disputed Presidential Election” (51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 2018), Edward B. Foley

The peculiar passive-voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.”

This interpretation can derive support from the observation that the President of the Senate is the only officer, or instrumentality, of government given an active role in the process of opening the certificates and counting the electoral votes from the states. The Senate and House of Representatives, on this view, have an observational role only. The opening and counting are conducted in their “presence”—for the sake of transparency—but these two legislative bodies do not actually take any actions of their own in this opening and counting process. How could they? Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives only act separately, as entirely distinct legislative chambers. They have no constitutional way to act together as one amalgamated corpus. Thus, they can only watch as the President of the Senate opens the certificates of electoral votes from the states and announces the count of the electoral votes contained therein.

This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are entitled to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate. (emphasis added)

Yet this is not even Foley’s opinion. He’s just presenting different viewpoints and his article runs through various “interpretative arguments” on the power of the President of the Senate and possible disputes as to vote counting.  Read the law review article linked above.

Macris also cites “Nobody for President” (16 J.L. & Pol., 2000) by John Harrison, quoting as follows:

The Twelfth Amendment provides that in the presence of the two houses, [the President of the Senate] shall open all the certificates from the electors. But as history shows, there can be more than one purported certificate from a state. Indeed, multiple purported certificates may be the most common cause of dispute. The certificates that the President of the Senate is to open, however, are those of the electors, not those of non-electors. Hence, in order to know which certificates to open, the President of the Senate must know which of competing slates of electors were validly appointed.

…A natural reading [of the Twelfth Amendment] thus indicates that in one especially important context, the dispute is to be resolved by a single individual. Neither House nor Senate is given any authority over the President of the Senate when it comes to opening the certificates, and Congress by statute may not control the exercise of this constitutionally granted authority any more than it may tell the President who to pardon. (emphasis added)

Yet in the very next sentence in the Harrison article not quoted, he opines to the contrary:

It would be hard to imagine that one person had been given this power, even if we did not know that the President of the Senate often would be a candidate for President of the United States. We know that well, as did the authors of the Twelfth Amendment.

There’s also a historical example that gets cited, of Thomas Jefferson counting defective votes.  From this it is argued that Pence could refuse to count allegedly defective votes. But that’s the opposite of what Jefferson did, he counted the votes opened. Law Prof. Jed Shugman writes of that precedent:

My mentor Bruce Ackerman and my friend David Fontana wrote this article (summarized here) about how Adams in 1796 and Jefferson in 1800 counted electoral votes with formalistic problems (Vermont & Georgia, respectively. But there was no Electoral Count Act then. Moreover, the historical record does not suggest a substantive dispute over whether Vermont or Georgia intended the electoral votes to go to Adams or Jefferson, respectively. The vice presidents’ actions in 1796 & 1800 simply are not precedents for Pence to defy the voters or the Electoral Count Act.

I’ve gone farther down this rabbit hole than I should have, particularly on New Year’s Eve. If you want “to fight” on January 6 for political reasons, I get it, I’m as frustrated as you are (maybe more so).

It’s just bothered me that really bad legal takes — and these are not the first — have mislead well-meaning and justifiably-concerned people to think the outcome on January 6 is going to be different.

UPDATE 8 p.m.

There’s a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas seeking a declaration and injunction giving Pence the power to decide which electoral votes to count, and declaring the Electoral Count Act void. You can see the docket with links to filings here. Pence has filed an opposition saying he is not a proper party, the relief if any needs to be against the House and Senate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Thanks! I’ve seen so many stories about this, it’s hard to figure out what’s likely.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to billdyszel. | December 31, 2020 at 11:57 pm

    Philo-Identitas says:

    “Our nation is basically for sale. It’s the only logical conclusion that explains why PDJT’s own party (with exceptions like such as with this lawsuit) refuses to support their own elected POTUS. Any agenda that seeks to put America First means tremendous wealth is no longer for the taking.

    Powerful interests both individual and collective; oligarchs along with corporations that have grown out of control without accountability — they openly admit that national sovereignty and self-determination is contrary to their interests, and they fund both major parties. Just look to the Chamber of Commerce for an example thereof.

    It makes no sense why the GOP establishment would behave like this instead of taking a stand for PDJT in the midst of overwhelming vote fraud. Unless, of course, it’s understood that a majority of our elected representatives want a return to business as usual and to further enrich themselves at the expense of working Americans.”

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | January 1, 2021 at 2:39 pm

      Nigel Farage”s NYE Brixit quote can apply to this as well.

      “However unhappy I might be about some of the detail, in 100 years time, kids in school will read that the people beat the politicians.”

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to billdyszel. | January 1, 2021 at 12:21 am

    Dinesh D’Souza:

    “the GOP establishment must recognize there is no way forward without the Trump voters, and the Trump voters demand a challenge of the election results.”

    …The GOPe doesn’t care.

    ….The GOPe wants elimination of “Trump” supporters in exactly the same way the GOP wanted, and orchestrated, the elimination of the Tea Party.

    If America-First or “MAGA” ideology is the Republican brand, that means the elimination (ie. lots of republicans being primaried) of tenured GOPe politicians.

    As an outcome, “Trumpism” is a risk to their structural power.

    The charge against the Tea Party was led by Republicans.

    The same charge against Trump is led by Republicans.

    The Last refuge

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | January 1, 2021 at 5:13 am

      Mr. Peabody… the DeplorAble

      America was “born” under the phase …..
      “No taxation ! Without representation ! ”

      We Americans no longer have a representative government !
      Time to stop paying our taxes !!

        EXTORTION differs from TAXATION only if the taxed have a say in budget and finance. Over the last 40 years, Taxpayers have become marginalized. In some places, voters who pay ZERO tax are the majority. That effectively disenfranchises the taxpayer and results in public officials representing those who pay no tax. All they want from taxpayers is a blank check. This has to STOP immediately. For example, in NYC 54% of voters pay no tax. This is tyranny. I’m a member of Union of Taxpayers. UoT is fighting this tyranny. Check out unionoftaxpayers.org

    PugHenry in reply to billdyszel. | January 1, 2021 at 10:10 am

    Prof. Jacobson ,

    I sent you an email on this last night (NY Eve , while watching Team USA beat Team Sweden in the World Juniors). So my email was a bit rambling ….Then, this AM, I saw a Carol Brown refer to it in article in The American Thinker : https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/dont_expect_mike_pence_to_save_us_on_january_6.html

    That compelled me to weigh in, again.

    As I said, I don’t think that the VP’s responsibilities as it relates to counting the Electoral votes can be properly understood unless they are viewed within the context of the Guarantee Clause (Article IV-Sect. 4) of the Constitution.

    Keep in mind, when the 12 Amendment was passed, there was no popular voting to select the electors ….the state legislatures selected them …Thus any challenge to them prior to the votes being certified and sent to Congress was pretty straight forward .

    It wasn’t until the complexity of popular voting was added into the process that ‘the stakes were raised’ …because the Federal Officers, specifically the VP, responsible for confirming the certification of the vote then had much more to to burden them in their carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities as it relates to the Guarantee Clause.

    The Executive Branch was designed to act and, if necessary, react quickly when circumstances dictated ….the same cannot be said for the other two branches ….Ensuring electoral integrity (free and fair elections) is integral to the maintenance of a Republic …

    Up until the Congress, headed by the President of the Senate, meets, to confirm the certification, it is the states fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the elections they recently conducted were done in such a manner so as to ‘guarantee’ their republican form of government ….

    But if there is evidence that the states in some way have been negligent in doing so ….then it is at this point that the Executive Branch MUST step in, according to its duties under the Guarantee Clause, to act to reject the ‘certified’ votes where there is evidence that the elections they are meant to certify were not conducted in a free and fair manner.

    So my point is, we can NOT leave out of the context the Federal Government’s role as it relates to the Guarantee Clause (It is meant to be a ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the states) …I see it as integral to the purpose and understanding as to why the founders required the President of the Senate receive and then count THE votes (illegally certified votes as per the judgment of the President of the Senate are NOT to be counted, if the PoS is in possession of evidence that proves there was fraud in the election)

    This doesn’t mean that the PoS can’t or wont invite contests to his/her determination (Electoral Count Act of 1887) ….it just means that the party of those who will be doing the contesting will be different …

    I , personally, don’t think the VP even has to entertain them ….but I’m going to guess that , given his collegial nature, VP Pence will

      RandomCrank in reply to PugHenry. | January 1, 2021 at 4:45 pm

      Article IV, Sec. 4 guarantees “a republican form of government,” but does not define it. Nowhere is it written that elections must be fair or honest. In the case of presidents, the state votes are mere inputs, and the election is done by the electors and not the people.

      The fraudulent voting is a very bitter pill, and I think highly destructive of the country and its institutions. I think it will be seen in history as a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats, i.e. one whose terrible costs outweigh any benefits from the victory.

      Still, this particular effort is darkly humorous in a number of ways, starting with the obvious misreading of the constitution. That this is being done by people who ordinarily go on and on about the constitution adds an ironic twist of the knife, and reminds us that NEITHER SIDE has principles.

      The difference between principles and partisan talking points is simple to me: If you won’t apply them to yourself, then they are talking points.

      I don’t like the outcome one bit (see my second paragraph), but the idea that Pence can overturn this is, well, I do hate it put it this way, but the word would be “stupid.” Also applying would be “delusional.”

      For someone who had enough gut-level political skill to have been elected in 2016, Trump was glaringly incompetent in his handling of the state elections and the subsequent challenges. The word for that would also be harsh: “embarrassing.”

      Kids, we know who the president will be after noon on January 20th. It’ll be Joseph Biden. As a student of history (complete with a degree in the subject from what was the 4th-ranked program), I know that a) The 2020 presidential election was not the first to be stolen, but more accurately the fourth or fifth, depending on how one views the 2000 fiasco, and b) The country survived and prospered anyway.

      In that vein, all we can do is hope history repeats itself.

        PugHenry in reply to RandomCrank. | January 1, 2021 at 6:03 pm

        Article IV – Section 4 was written over 200 years ago ….we can be sure that, by now, the term ‘a republican form of government’ has been adequately defined …. I’ve seen it defined as ‘free and fair elections’.

        So it is defined well enough that the VP should have no problem determining, based on the evidence he’s seen, that the elections in the seven states do not hold up to the expectations of the founders who drafted Article IV – Sect. 4.

        Let me frame it another way …Article IV – Sect. 4 requires the Federal Government to ensure that ALL states have a republican form of government ….that’s done by determining (verifying) that the state legislatures see to it that laws and procedures are implemented to ensure ballot integrity.

        So then an election is held and the results are tallied and then sent by the state legislatures to the federal government for counting ….Do we really believe that the founders meant for the states to have no federal oversight of this process?? Do we really think that they meant it to be merely a rubber stamp?? Then why send the certified votes to Congress ??

        Makes no sense ….the founders were very careful to make certain that for ‘every check,there is a balance’ …so, in my view, the 12th Amendment clarifies that the Federal government, through the President of the Senate’s receipt and counting of the ‘certified’ votes, was meant to be more than ceremonial …it was meant to be a final ‘check’ on the process before the federal govt gave the elections its imprimatur ….

        It’s the only thing that makes sense ….

        Yes ….VP Pence has plenary powers on January 6th …the Gohmert suit was meant to clarify that …but it is not necessary …If Pence were to act ‘ex cathedra’ there is nothing anyone could do, but to seek redress in the courts …but by that time, it will be too late …

        I’d like to see it go down that way ….but it looks like he will let the Dems protest under the ECA’87 …

          RandomCrank in reply to PugHenry. | January 2, 2021 at 6:41 pm

          Two or three weeks ago, I began making the following offer to people like you. It went like this:

          “Find a reputable escrow agent. You wire $1,000 and I wire $11,000. When Congress meets to open and count the certificates, if Biden’s elected I get $11,000. If Trump is elected, you get $11,000. We each pay our own wire transfer fees.”

          No takers on 10:1 odds. It’s the old saw: “If you want to know what someone really thinks, watch what he does with his money.” LOL

          RandomCrank in reply to PugHenry. | January 2, 2021 at 6:43 pm

          Oops. My offer was $10K from me to match the other side’s $1K. Come on, True Believer, put your cowardly wallet where your brave keyboard is.

    RoyalWulff55 in reply to billdyszel. | January 2, 2021 at 11:29 am

    If Pence knowingly opens and counts a fraudulent slate of electors he, too, becomes a criminal in this act of treason.

It makes me sad, too.

The Constitution is rather meaningless now that our government is controlled by a Communist giant.

Look no further than rats like John Roberts, and no-shows like Amy what’s her name.

There are two tiers of society and justice in our country. We live in a lighter version of the Soviet Union, where 10 percent of the population looted the other 90 percent.

It’s going to get a lot worse: just like the USSR had it’s NKVD and Mao had his Red Guard, and Hitler had his Brownshirts, the swamp has its Antifa and BLM thugs.

The worst is yet to come – and it’s coming.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for us to ever govern the US again: not after the destruction of 2 generations of students by the left, and well on to a third.

We need to secede before our live are in danger.

    I agree with a ray of hope. Perhaps the military will defend the country from the foreign and domestic enemies. The evidence is so clear that the deep state is working out in the open now.

    Biden was not elected. Pretending he was elected by accepting fraudulent “election” results is a surrender to the CCP and the end of the Constitutional Republic. Marxists do not suffer counterrevolutionaries. Biden/Harris end the past as HRC was expected to do in 2016. They will rapidly try to disarm the deplorables because they have to.

      Given the circumstances we are in, “hope” will get you killed.

      Forget “hope” and make your future. If we don’t seriously start discussing secession, we’ll find ourselves in the custody of the Communist Chinese, first and foremost who have an agent of theirs positioned as a purported president-elect of our country.

      “Hope”, my ass. Let’s get real here.

      Milhouse in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 31, 2020 at 10:26 pm

      Involving the military will really be the end of the constitutional republic.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 11:46 pm

        And where are we now? Totally unchartered territory. Do we really have a “Republic” now or just Rome on the Potomac or some third world country in the making? OK.. so Biden/Harris are sworn in and the Dems steal Georgia. What is left of the Republic after that since one of the greatest values of being an American citizen is functionally forever gone… voting? So both the Executive and Legislative branches are compromised and .. gee… the judiciary is so “constitutional”. Blatant illegality got us here and we are grasping at “legal” straws. Maybe we can ask the UN or League of Nations for help.

          Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 1:43 am

          It may be uncharted territory, but we’re still a constitutional republic. You are calling for a military coup and the violent overthrow of that republic. That would make us a banana republic. A tyranny. Something every loyal American would be duty-bound to fight.

          Barry in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 2:05 am

          “That would make us a banana republic.”

          No, banana republics are the ones that stand by and allow fraudulent elections.

          henrybowman in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 3:25 pm

          When there is no legal recourse for outright election theft, you are already a banana republic.

          alaskabob in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 8:45 pm

          Milhouse… Just what is a “republic” when it isn’t a republic anymore? Not being unkind but how successful would you have been representing Jewish clients in 1930’s Germany? Obviously, the “rule of law” exists. The Nuremberg Laws exist. The courts are still functioning. Or make it the USSR? Or any dictatorship? When faced with a blatant extra-legal theft as now there comes a time when working “within the system” is not only futile but disingenuous. How much more theft and destruction has to happen before “enough is enough”? You live and breathe “the rule of law” yet your adversaries do not function in that realm. Your remedy in that realm is unavailable adn denied to you. Your politcal ideology is now second class. This is a huge hingepoint in history. We are living in a unique time for which conventional thinking was shattered by events. Your … our.. judicial system and the rule of law no longer exist as we had it or wanted to continue it. Extemeism in the defense of liberty is not a vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue.

        Paul In Sweden in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 12:02 am

        I wholeheartedly agree with you Milhouse when you say “Involving the military will really be the end of the constitutional republic.”

        IMO: The idea of the US Military which is controlled and infected by the Deep State that are above the law or even public scrutiny, terrifies me. The Rubicon must never be crossed.

        mailman in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 10:02 am

        How quaint that you believe a constitutional Republic currently exists.

        swampdave in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 11:02 am

        As a career member of the military I can say with confidence that the military is not going to intervene in a political battle. This is not Cuba, China or Vietnam. Military people are not molded and indoctrinated with political ideology. The military, for the most part, is made up of your friends and neighbors and they are not going to get involved.

          Our friends and neighbors? So what are the going to do when our democrat/Chicomm Junta has them aim their guns at us (their friends and neighbors)?

          They’ll get involved.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to swampdave. | January 2, 2021 at 1:33 am

          I too do not believe the rank and file in the US Military would willing take up arms domestically for a political battle but what of the establishment the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies?

          How many Alexander Semyon Vindman’s and his brother do we have in positions of power within the US Military? I am sorry #lol that is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman…

          I have respect and admiration for the volunteer members of all the branches of the US Military and burns me up that from the time of George W. that the military has been corrupted by political plants and opportunists.

          George W. is of course George Washington – never to be confused with the Texas Globalist.

          TX-rifraph in reply to swampdave. | January 2, 2021 at 7:25 am

          Is this really a political battle when you have foreign enemies attacking our election process? The enemy coopted the political process by paying off corrupt traitors. This is a military attack designed to look like a political battle. The military has a sworn duty here.

          Virginia42 in reply to swampdave. | January 4, 2021 at 1:28 pm

          Plus, it seems quite clear (despite the oath to defend against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC) that there are too many Swamp/Obamunist flag officers. They wouldn’t act even if it there was a clear cut reason to do so.

    Better to be ungoverned than to have the current bunch of clowns with Biden/Harris controlling the Football.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to artichoke. | January 1, 2021 at 12:47 am

      There is a really BIG ELEPHANT in the room that nobody including myself dares to speak about because we do not want to be put on no-fly lists, and/or believe the sun will come out tomorrow and this too will pass, or what I really think is that we as a subjected and ruled population are complacent and feel that we can ride this all out and not be around any longer when it gets really bad.

      It appears my right to vote has effectively been stripped from me and my fellow citizens. The Ruling Elite can diminish my voice to such an extent that Free Speech is only for the ruling elite. Likewise, freedom to assemble and practice religion is at the whims of our rulers.

      The courts offer no remedy. What are my options and do I have the stomach or backbone to face those options? Do any of you?

        Dathurtz in reply to Paul In Sweden. | January 1, 2021 at 7:16 am

        Organization is the issue.

          Ben Kent in reply to Dathurtz. | January 2, 2021 at 12:45 am

          Organization? Money = Power. Read below.

          EXTORTION differs from TAXATION only if the taxed have a say in budget and finance. Over the last 40 years, Taxpayers have become marginalized. In some places, voters who pay ZERO tax are the majority. That effectively disenfranchises the taxpayer and results in public officials representing those who pay no tax. All they want from taxpayers is a blank check. This has to STOP immediately. For example, in NYC 54% of voters pay no tax. This is tyranny. I’m a member of Union of Taxpayers. UoT is fighting this tyranny. Check out unionoftaxpayers.org

        The answer to you question is “NO” and Roberts, et al know it!

        I’ve been banging on about this already Paul.

        What the Democrats have achieved with their obvious voter fraud is to disenfranchise EVERY legal American voter regardless of whether those legal votes were cast for a D, R or I candidate.

        Democrats have made voting pointless because they will always generate the number of required votes for their own selfish purpose as no one will stop them.

          Paul In Sweden in reply to mailman. | January 1, 2021 at 4:40 pm

          Yeah, Mailman I wonder if the DNC will announce or leak the November election results during future summers. The right to vote, freedom to assembly and freedom to practice religion have been almost eradicated. Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

    @TheFineReport.com

    You complain about generations of students beings turned into leftist. Well your nonsensical arguments don’t help. Comparing the current situation to the Soviet Union or the Nazis is frankly moronic. There is no comparison.

      MarkS in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 8:53 am

      Oh really? Explain the differences

        mark311 in reply to MarkS. | January 1, 2021 at 11:05 am

        @MarkS

        Sure, with respect to the Soviet Union historically first.

        1) the Soviet Union started as a civil war
        2) the Soviet Union did have elections although they are quite different from a democracy. If you voted you used a blank ballot to denote voting for the party candidate or you used the polling booths which was not a great idea. Point being the system was intrinsically a single part state whereas the US is two party.
        3) historically you can see a swing in the balance of power in the US, that is between parties. There has rarely been a clean run of one party dominating politics. The executive , the Senate and the congress are explicitly set up to ensure that there is always a pendulum effect and tends never to stand still whereas in the Soviet Union the result was always the same.
        4) I could go on….

        The Nazi comparison

        1) The German economy was in the shits, for an extended period of time had lost a world war, had the treaty of Versailles as a point of common hatred. The US under the Obama and Trump presidency has had major economic growth (certainly when measuring against stick market) and gdp (less so with Trump). Covid is obviously the fly in the economic ointment for Trump bit given the polarisation in politics and it being ‘only a year’ I’d suggest that Economically the climate is somewhat different between the two in terms of setting a up a Nazi esque regime

        2) The Nazis entire narrative was driven by hate, and making Germany great again. No being funny but comparing narratives I’d suggest that Trump was closer to the Nazis than the Democrats (for clarity I’m not conflating Trump with the Nazis just that the Make America great narrative is closer)
        3) The Nazis were violent , now there have been minor instances of violence but these have been on both sides of the divide
        4) the Nazis killed millions of people , I’m sorry but comparing an American democratic party to the Nazis should have a semblance of justification.

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 12:25 pm

          You left a few things out of your post.

          First, the USSR. The Revolution was between two totalitarian systems, the communist Bolsheviks and the existing monarchists. It was nothing more than a naked power play. The Bolsheviks, upon winning the war, then installed another totalitarian system run by an elite oligarchy. Elections were a sham and the leadership was chosen by the oligarchy. To maintain control of the country, stringent controls were put in place and savagely enforced. In the US, while we have a two party system, those parties have not been in serious contention for 75 years. While this country was split along economic lines of manufacturing v agriculture, the to parties were vying for dominance of one or the other facet of the economy. This changed significantly after WWII. The leadership of the parties realized that they had much in common. They realized that they could make much more money, if they worked toward the same goal. And, it is all about economic benefit. The main stumbling block to their total control of the country was that pesky inclination of the American people to think for themselves. So, things had to change slowly. People had to be indoctrinated to simply believe whatever they were told, by Establishment organs, and not ask questions. Elections could be manipulated, to small degree. But, the pesky independent streak did not allow for widespread, obvious manipulation. So, some election integrity was maintained. That has all changed, now.

          Now, NAZI Germany.

          The Establishment in Germany had led the nation into a series of disastrous wars, which were then followed by the global depression. The people were very unhappy with the current leadership and was looking for a change. The existing political system did not allow for that change, however, being dominated by existing Establishment influences. So, two parties began vying to unseat the The NAZI’s unlike the Communists, did not want to destroy the current wealthy Establishment, their goal was to control it. To maintain the wealthy Establishment, they had to find someone else to blame for the disastrous action of the government. They settled on easily identified groups living outside thee dominant social structure of thee country. These included Gypsies, Jews and, later, homosexuals. Most of thee violence, engaged in by the NAZIs, was directed at the Communists, who were their immediate competition for power. Widespread violence was directed toward the Jewish community, once the Communist threat had been suppressed in an effort to cement the party’s growing political power. Once in power, the NAZIs used draconian state-based means to maintain control of the populace. These included surveillance, intimidation and the use of criminal charges. Now contrast that with the US today. The Establishment Democrat Party has taken on the aspects of the German NAZI party. They have set up scapegoat populations and attacked them. They have used the powers of the state against their enemies. They have attempted to impose totalitarian restrictions on all aspects of human life. They have attempted to establish control over the economy of the country, through government regulation. The Trump populists, on the other hand, have done none of this. With the exception of identifying criminals breaking the laws of the US by illegally entering and remaining within the borders of the country, they have not targeted any group. They have not used the powers of the state against their opponents. Rather than attempt to impose totalitarian control upon the citizenry, they have actually relaxed such controls and even eliminated some. hey have not engaged in any large scale or meaningful violence to advance their agenda.

          Now, we have the Uniparty [Democrat and Republican members of the Elite Establishment] and the newly risen Populist movement. The political landscape has changed. We see the Establishment using tried and true political methods widely used by totalitarian groups and regimes too maintain power. And, we see the Trump populists using none of the tactics and actually reducing the totalitarian controls already in place in this country. So who most closely resembles the NAZI party in Germany and the Communist Party in Russia, in the 1930s? US Democrats/GOPe or Trump Populists?

          Barry in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 1:49 pm

          mark311, another minimum wage paid marxist, paid to spread lies.

          Not an honest bone in its body.

          Yes, Mark: the Soviets came out of a civil war: leftist murderers and gangsters took over and murdered 60,000,000 of their fellow countrymen and women.

          Nazi Germany was a great democracy, whose culture became as clownish and perverted as ours prior war or no prior war.

          https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/may/25/weimar-republic-hedonism-sex-fear-art-culture-celebration

          History is not cookie-cutter, but the lessons are clear.

          In America, we now have a Junta in charge of our country, whose master is ultimately the Communist Chinese. From Biden, to Harris, to Roberts, to McConnell, to Pelosi etc – these are people against us. Got that? AGAINST US.

          Hide your head in the sand if it suits you, but remember: your ass is still hanging in the air, and warped Soros DA’s, Anita goods and BLM goons being incorporated into our government judges like Stacy Adams’ sister are counting on your position.

          You can stay in the former America, but you’ll see: a lot of us will be marching to secession.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:13 am

          @mac45

          Comment
          You left a few things out of your post.

          First, the USSR.

          ” The Revolution was between two totalitarian systems, the communist Bolsheviks and the existing monarchists. It was nothing more than a naked power play. ”
          Its more complicated than that, whilst the overall change was clearly to do with power , it was change from one system of government to another. Socialism and absolute monarchies are different systems of government. Neither are totalitarian that’s just not correct.

          “The Bolsheviks, upon winning the war, then installed another totalitarian system run by an elite oligarchy. Elections were a sham and the leadership was chosen by the oligarchy. To maintain control of the country, stringent controls were put in place and savagely enforced. ”

          Again it’s more complicated than that, the Soviet Union evolved as such to start with it had far more common support and was largely experimental as a form of government. The elections were a sham but that should be taken in the context of being a one party state so in their eyes it wasn’t it simply an expression of the system of government in place. The stringent controls evolved too, in the beginning it wasn’t so bad then Stalin came along which was clearly much worse. Then later Gorbachev carried out Perestroika which lifted some of the restrictions and left to the collapse of the Berlin wall. The Soviet Union in part ended itself through reform, obviously their were complicating factors. So if you are comparing the US and the USSR then one system has evolved and come to concluded itself whereas the other well hasn’t but it also hasn’t reformed either which I think many would agree should be considered with regard to elections.

          “In the US, while we have a two party system, those parties have not been in serious contention for 75 years. While this country was split along economic lines of manufacturing v agriculture, the to parties were vying for dominance of one or the other facet of the economy. This changed significantly after WWII. The leadership of the parties realized that they had much in common. They realized that they could make much more money, if they worked toward the same goal. And, it is all about economic benefit. The main stumbling block to their total control of the country was that pesky inclination of the American people to think for themselves. So, things had to change slowly. People had to be indoctrinated to simply believe whatever they were told, by Establishment organs, and not ask questions. Elections could be manipulated, to small degree. But, the pesky independent streak did not allow for widespread, obvious manipulation. So, some election integrity was maintained. That has all changed, now.”

          You are referring to consensus politics in the first part, that by and large produced great prosperity, and allowed the country as a whole to progress. Now clearly the economic progress is lopsided their are those who can legitimately say they have been left behind and that’s something that should be addressed of course. I simply don’t buy your indoctrination point. The establishment doesn’t really have the means to do that. I’d actually suggest the problem that developed is the echo chamber effect. Each ‘side’ has their source of news and people don’t tend to critically assess either. The fact there are news personalities often distorts it too. People like Sean Hannity activity distort the coverage they provide.

          Now, NAZI Germany.

          The Establishment in Germany had led the nation into a series of disastrous wars, which were then followed by the global depression. The people were very unhappy with the current leadership and was looking for a change. The existing political system did not allow for that change, however, being dominated by existing Establishment influences. So, two parties began vying to unseat the The NAZI’s unlike the Communists, did not want to destroy the current wealthy Establishment, their goal was to control it. To maintain the wealthy Establishment, they had to find someone else to blame for the disastrous action of the government. They settled on easily identified groups living outside thee dominant social structure of thee country. These included Gypsies, Jews and, later, homosexuals. Most of thee violence, engaged in by the NAZIs, was directed at the Communists, who were their immediate competition for power. Widespread violence was directed toward the Jewish community, once the Communist threat had been suppressed in an effort to cement the party’s growing political power. Once in power, the NAZIs used draconian state-based means to maintain control of the populace. These included surveillance, intimidation and the use of criminal charges. Now contrast that with the US today. The Establishment Democrat Party has taken on the aspects of the German NAZI party. They have set up scapegoat populations and attacked them. They have used the powers of the state against their enemies. They have attempted to impose totalitarian restrictions on all aspects of human life. They have attempted to establish control over the economy of the country, through government regulation. The Trump populists, on the other hand, have done none of this. With the exception of identifying criminals breaking the laws of the US by illegally entering and remaining within the borders of the country, they have not targeted any group. They have not used the powers of the state against their opponents. Rather than attempt to impose totalitarian control upon the citizenry, they have actually relaxed such controls and even eliminated some. hey have not engaged in any large scale or meaningful violence to advance their agenda.

          You are right in the sense that the origins of the Nazi party are more in alignment but that’s as far as I’d go. If you are actively saying that the democratic party is seeking to establish a totalitarian system then you are just plain wrong. I’m not clear what totalitarian laws you are referring too so please do enlighten me. The election fraud as I’ve noted before has been defeated by bipartisan courts based on the evidence. I have yet to see a coherent source that supports that fraud took place to a significant degree.

          I think your point on setting up ‘scape goats’ for want of a better description is worth some comment , I do see your point. I think though that it’s distorted. The problem is that there is a big split in society there is no middle ground (or feels like it) which is socially different from Germany. You have a republican party drifting to the right and a left wing that has had questionable hmm I hate the word but for simplicity ‘woke’ philosophical constructs included. Now both sides are guilty of having target groups, there are specific elements of the right that are racist , that’s just a fact (I’m NOT generalising) so the right has target groups itself. The left you’ve mentioned but I think you take that argument too far

          Now, we have the Uniparty [Democrat and Republican members of the Elite Establishment] and the newly risen Populist movement. The political landscape has changed. We see the Establishment using tried and true political methods widely used by totalitarian groups and regimes too maintain power. And, we see the Trump populists using none of the tactics and actually reducing the totalitarian controls already in place in this country. So who most closely resembles the NAZI party in Germany and the Communist Party in Russia, in the 1930s? US Democrats/GOPe or Trump Populists?

          If you are suggesting that the Republican party and the democratic party are currently working together then I don’t see it. They fight over everything. That’s part of the problem one party does one thing in one direction then when the rival gets into power they waste loads of times undoing what was done previously. That’s one reason why consensus politics worked so well you don’t waste time doing basically nothing.

          When you refer to Trump populists and Republicans they are part of the same party. There has always been a tension between the two elements.

          If you are asking which is the greater threat then that’s obvious Trump populists. If you are looking for a genuine comparison then how about cult of personality. There are some intelligent people on this site it’s why I read it but mention Trump and suddenly he can do no wrong, there is a double standard … When the left does something wrong it’s one standard but when Trump it’s a free pass.

          Hopefully I’ve addresses all your points, it’s a challenge doing a longer piece from my phone though

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:20 am

          @ thefinereport

          Your statements don’t actually make any sense for a comparitive perspective. Saying some facts about the past and linking them are two different things. And the facts you state have no comparison with the current political situation

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:26 am

          @Barry

          Making a few assumptions aren’t you. If you can’t argue against me then don’t but baseless insults only tell me that you don’t have an argument and therefore don’t have a justified position

Didn’t seem right to me this VP option but I’m not a constitutional scholar.
That it’s up to a Democrat run Congress and a Republican coward Senate can’t see any way it will turn out other than a installed government run by a Sock Puppet

The only certification the constitution mentions is that of the electors themselves, certifying their votes. Those are the certificates the VP is to open. But this assumes there is no doubt who the electors are, and that the certificates he has before him are genuine. But what if that’s not clear?

Congress is given no role but that of witnesses, so I doubt that the Electoral Count Act is valid. But who, then, is to decide which certificates the VP shall open? It seems to me that the only person who can decide that is the person whose duty it is. And that is the VP. So if Pence has a genuine doubt as to whether the certificate purporting to be from the PA electors is genuine, it seems to me inescapable that he would have the discretion and the duty not to open it. But to exercise that power he must have a genuine doubt, not just desperate wishful thinking.

In 1877 the problem became unavoidable, because the VP had not one but two certificates from several states, each purporting to be from the state’s duly appointed electors. In that circumstance he had no choice but to make a decision, either to open one of the conflicting certificates and not the other, or not to open any of them. And the congress’s claim at that time, to have the right to make that decision, seems clearly to have been wrong. If the VP doesn’t make that decision then nobody can make it, but a decision must be made!

One thing is certain: The idea that Republican legislators had to make a choice whether to certify the electors from their states or not to do so, was always BS. The legislature plays no role in the appointment of electors, after the general election. Its only role is having long ago set the rules. I don’t understand how people get such ideas.

    CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 7:13 pm

    Milhouse,

    IMO the state legislature does have the power to:
    1. Choose to accept the election results by refraining from sending a competing slate of electors
    OR
    2. Send a competing slate of electors if the election result/ process is adequately disputed/in question.

    The Constitution gives them the power to select electors. That is an inherent power they hold. A simple statute for election laws doesn’t overcome that inherent power.

    Obviously we don’t want legislatures running around half cocked. They should be very convinced that the election process is sufficiently tainted and act in a restrained manner before invoking that power.

    Unfortunately, none of the r controlled State legislatures choose to act and allow evidence to be presented to legislative committees and then hold a debate and vote either for or against an alternative slate.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | December 31, 2020 at 7:37 pm

      No, CommoChief, the constitution does not give the legislatures the power to select electors. It gives them the power only to set the rules for how electors are to be appointed. Now they could make the rule be “we choose them”. But no states currently have such a rule.

      Under the rules currently in place in all 50 states, the legislature literally has no role after the election. It doesn’t send electors. It doesn’t certify them. It doesn’t do anything to them or about them.

      So the people who were saying that each Republican legislator was faced with a choice, whether to vote for the Biden electors or to vote against them, were simply wrong. The process they imagined was going to take place — a legislative vote on sending the electors’ votes to DC, simply doesn’t exist.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:13 pm

        Going a little further down that rabbit hole, what if the legislature chose a method whereby they picked Trump electors, even though the method that had existed previously had selected Biden electors? When the legislators select a method, surely the current ones in the current legislature have priority over those of 100 years ago who are no longer legislators in a past legislature.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:20 pm

        But what everyone is skipping around is that the state legislatures have the plenary authority to set the rules for conducting elections for Presidential electors. Then, as you note, the responsibility is supposed to shift to the executive to implement those rules, and then certify the results. But what happens if (as happened in these six states), the rules set by the state legislatures were ignored, and the state executives certified electors elected illegally, via very blatant violations of the rules set out by the various state legislatures? Put simply, the executives in these states didn’t have the legal power to conduct the sort of mail in elections that they conducted, yet did so any, then certified the results from their illegally conducted elections.

        If not to send their own slate of electors, then what is the remedy for the state legislatures having had their power to set the rules for elections usurped by the executive and judicial branches of their state governments? The Constitution is very clear – the state legislatures’ power to set the rules is plenary, and there is no role for either the states’ executives or judiciaries.

          My point is that — contrary to how so many people here claimed — the legislatures didn’t vote to certify the electors. They did nothing at all. They have no role, so they let things play out.

          Changing the rules post facto was one option, though a very strong argument could have been made by the Democrats that it’s the state constitution that defines what is the state legislature, and many/most state constitutions say the governor is part of it, in that his assent is needed for all acts of the legislature unless a supermajority in each chamber overrides him.

          I don’t know which states, if any, don’t have such a provision, but I do know that the US constitution explicitly does; not just proposed laws but anything at all that Congress (as opposed to a single chamber) does must be presented to the president for his assent or veto, and without that it is not an act of the congress.

          So the Democrats could argue that even if both houses of the state legislature were to change the rules, the governor could veto it and the old rules would remain in place. I don’t think any of the states in question have enough Republicans to override a veto.

          In any case, my point is that they were not presented with a situation where they had to vote one way or the other. And that was what was claimed here, by those who imagined that the legislature sends the electors, or certifies the electors, or does something about the electors. It doesn’t.

          felixrigidus in reply to Bruce Hayden. | January 1, 2021 at 4:45 am

          The State Constitution can certainly determine what the “legislature” of the state in question is, but that does not determine what “legislature” means in the context of the US Constitution.

          That, I’d argue, must be read in the context of the meaning that Articles I through III provide. And while the Executive has a role to play in legislation it does not make it part of the legislature; or more precisely, while the Vice President is in a way part of both branches insofar as he actually gets a deciding vote in the Senate, the veto power does not make the President part of the legislature. Otherwise, the Supreme Court is part of the Legislature at least since Marbury v. Madison.

          A state constitution could give the governor a vote, not unlike the Vice Presidents in the legislature, but it should not be able to confuse the core functions of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.

          (And yes, this is very broad strokes, not a scholarly effort to deal with all intricacies of the issue…)

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 11:29 pm

        I’m not so sure about that Milhouse. The language from Article II says:

        “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.”

        It simply says the state shall “appoint” electors in the manner the state’s legislature directs. There is nothing there about an election of any sort to determine who electors shall be, or that a legislature may not change their minds at any time as to whom shall be appointed, or as to the process of that appointment. A strict reading seems to indicate a state’s legislature could change its appointments, and therefore the manner and means of making said appointments, right up to the moment an elector’s vote is opened and tallied by the Vice President.

        My reading is that the Republican legislatures in the swing states could, if they have the conviction and fortitude, intervene as desired, and appoint as electors anyone they desire by any means desired up to the point of the electors’ votes being opened and tallied by Pence. Of course the law suites would fly. And perhaps bullets, too, which is why the legislatures would require such great conviction and fortitude.

        But this will not happen, because those legislative bodies do not hold such conviction and fortitude. Their constituents are simply not up to forcing such attributes upon them. This is manifestly obvious by their failure to act in this matter.

          I don’t understand why so many people are having difficulty understanding the very simple point I am making.

          The constitution says the state shall appoint electors in the manner the legislature says it shall do so. The manner in which all 50 state legislatures have set is by holding an election. They set that manner years or decades ago. And unless and until they change that manner, they have no further role in the process. There is no meeting of the legislature after the election, at which they formally appoint the electors, or send their votes to DC. The “appointment” is done not by the legislature but by the voters, because that’s what the legislature said should happen. And the job of figuring out whom the voters have appointed belongs to the officials specified in the relevant state laws that the legislature made.

          Now a legislature could have changed its rules after the election, though it would very probably have needed its governor’s asset to do that. But no, it can’t do so “right up to the moment an elector’s vote is opened and tallied by the Vice President”. The electors must all vote on the same day, which is set by Congress, and that day was Dec 14. Once that happened it’s over, and the rules can’t be changed.

          (Note that in some states the Republican would-be electors voted anyway, just in case they should later be determined to have been the voter-selected electors after all. In such a case their certificate would be sent to DC, and the VP could decide to open that instead of the one that were originally sent. But that could only happen if it was determined that they had already been appointed by the 14th, they just didn’t know it at the time. That determination can still be made, until the 6th. But it would have to be a determination of fact, which means the legislature can’t do it.)

caseoftheblues | December 31, 2020 at 6:38 pm

How utterly useless is our legal system and laws and Constitution when a blatantly fraudulent election MUST be allowed to stand because the tiny nuance of words is judged more important than citizens right to vote and choose their own government and leaders…cause that is exactly what you are saying Professor.

    There is no right to vote, except that granted by our state and national constitutions and laws. If it were otherwise then Algore would have been the legitimate president in 2001 and the Wicked Witch of Westchester would be the legitimate president now.

    CommoChief in reply to caseoftheblues. | December 31, 2020 at 6:55 pm

    There isn’t any nuance in ‘shall’. Prof Jacobson is simply pointing out the absurdity of the proposition that the VP has the ability, under the current circumstances without any alternative slate of electors being presented, to choose to do anything other than open and count.

    Had one of the r controlled State Legislatures taken action to vote for and send an alternative slate of electors then the VP, arguably, has the discretion to choose between the slates.

    There is no alternate slate of electors. None of the Legislatures choose to act. Their failure to act in voting to send an alternative slate ties the hands of the VP. End of story.

    None of us are happy with this. Please stop with the false narrative that somehow VP Pence is ‘selling out’ by following the Constitution.

      caseoftheblues in reply to CommoChief. | December 31, 2020 at 7:29 pm

      That’s not the narrative I’m putting out there…you are all tied up in knots cause the law and yes the nuance of words is more sacred to you then the actual continuation of our country as a Constitutional Republic. The law and regulations are crap if they protect and support this blatant theft of an election and the thieves that did it. But that’s where according to you all…we are at. I’m willing to bet it was not in the English law that the founding fathers could start this country…and thank gawd they were men of a different ilk than you and most here. This is unprecedented and demands unprecedented action that is not covered in these laws and regulations you worship.

        What the hell do you think a “constitutional republic” means, if not a strict adherence to “the law and yes the nuance of words”? If we don’t adhere to those then by definition we will not have a constitutional republic.

          dberg166 in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 7:45 pm

          I agree with you if we have to blindly allow fraud because of nuances of words then it’s better not be a constitutional republic

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:14 pm

          The Supreme Court has made the word “shall” mean maybe, maybe not.

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:15 pm

          Then it was gone certainly at the moment the word “penumbra” was uttered in the halls of SCOTUS, if not much earlier.

          Rules are made to be broken. The Dems do it all the time.

          caseoftheblues in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 5:24 am

          Oh you mean adherence to the law like those that stole the election and get rewarded for that “adherance” with the White House and control of all branches of the government…like that? By your own definition then we are no longer a Constitutional Republic…due in part to mincing lawyers like yourself… You’re starting to appear as a blind fool here

          Dathurtz in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 7:19 am

          If you accept your statement as true, then you must acknowledge that we already do not have a constitutional republic, and haven’t for decades.

          If we accept that as true, how do you propose we restore a constitutional republic as our governing body?

        Close The Fed in reply to caseoftheblues. | December 31, 2020 at 8:22 pm

        Yes, Case of the Blues, we suffer from Law-itis. A BAD BAD BAD case of it.

        We should be overturning the tables, the apple carts, the cars, whatever, in order to save the country from being in the pocket of a chinese agent.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Close The Fed. | December 31, 2020 at 8:35 pm

          HEAR.

          HEAR.

          Even of this legal beagle mental masturbation.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Close The Fed. | December 31, 2020 at 8:36 pm

          ENOUGH

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Close The Fed. | January 1, 2021 at 2:36 pm

          What Are Americans To Do When the Justice Department Is Unjust, the Courts Won’t Adjudicate and the Media Covers It All Up?

          By Joe Hoft
          Published January 1, 2021

          Americans just witnessed the most corrupt presidential election in US history. Never before have we seen so much election and voter fraud in a single race. But those institutions that are in place to protect Americans from incidents like this have gone to the dark side.
          Anyone who cares to look into the fraud will soon be overwhelmed once they delve into the evidence.

          People who see no fraud don’t want to see it, because it is there and it is huge. It is everywhere. But the US Justice Department won’t investigate and the courts won’t hear cases related to the fraud and the media remains silent or lies and covers up the fraud.

          For the last two months we’ve reported on the massive fraud committed in the 2020 election. Today there are millions of votes that are ineligible in three swing states alone, yet the fraudulent results in these states remain unchanged:……

          Gateway Pundit

          Apparently, there was a flaw in the constitution and has been exploited by the lawyers on these threads to force us to commit suicide. The constitution was not designed to deal with crises that have no legal case precedents.

          So American history ended in 1788 when the constitution banned us from evolving into form a more perfect union. According to Team Milhouse, we have no choice but to “follow the law” and march off of that cliff.

          We need to find lawyers who can find a way to win. Losing by quitting is not an option. If the constitution doesn’t work, we still have the Declaration of Independence which is very clear on the rights that we have and where they are derived.

        CommoChief in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 1, 2021 at 9:49 am

        case of the blues,

        ‘my ilk’….guy you don’t know me. I am willing to lay odds that I have sacrificed a good deal more than 99.9% of my fellow Citizens in the service of our Nation.

        I am not going to list my military CV out but suffice to say I have served as enlisted and as an officer, on several continents, with plenty of trigger time on multiple deployments to the sandbox and other lesser known places, culminating in a medical retirement with 100% disability rating.

        I am tired of reading all these inflammatory comments from keyboard wannabe warriors who likely have never fired a shot in anger. If you have ever seen first hand what a civil war or insurgency looks like you wouldn’t want our Nation to go down that path.

        We are not at the inflection point yet. We have a history of several shady national elections; Nixon v Kennedy. 2020 is no different in that respect. A tainted presidential election isn’t the end of the Republic or it would have long since fallen.

          caseoftheblues in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2021 at 4:13 pm

          Common Chief…and YOU likewise know NOTHING of me and what I have done or am doing but you certainly have made assumptions. I am going off of what you have posted…do nothing…mincing words…can’t see the forest for the trees…so enamoured with “the law” that has been utterly corrupted and so willing to accept a fraud of a president knowing doing full well will result in the US NEVER having an actual election again because fraud and corruption are fine as long as we bow and scrape to the ‘shalls’ and ‘will provides’ as written into “the law”…pathetic

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2021 at 7:37 pm

          case of the blues,

          You and other keyboard warriors posting in veiled terms about an unspecified something that to be ‘done’ by an unspecified someone….can we please not let an election loss, even when under a cloud of suspicion, lead us to discuss a civil war?

          Our Nation has faced this situation multiple times. The most recent with Kennedy ‘defeating’ Nixon. This isn’t the first time in 2020 and it won’t be the last time the d/progressives out hustle, out prepare, out work and most importantly out lawfare the r. Complacency and arrogance on the part of the r leadership in several States led to this.

          It’s a free country. You can believe what you wish. You can even express outlandish opinions with no basis in fact. That alone shows we haven’t yet reached the inflection point.

          I suggest you refocus your energy on something productive. Get involved in local politics. Volunteer to train and become a poll watcher or election ‘judge’. Heck run for office yourself.

          You need to think about how to channel all this energy at something achievable and stop jumping in front of a train. Learn to pick your battles and only fight when you have created the conditions for victory. Don’t confuse theatrics with heroics.

          All of us are going to be unhappy when electoral votes are counted. I urge you not to place your psychological and emotional health on the line for some ‘rabbit out of a hat’ magic that propels Trump to victory on the 6th. It ain’t gonna happen. I wish it were otherwise.

caseoftheblues | December 31, 2020 at 6:46 pm

And let me also add ….the people and groups that committed every type of fraud imaginable didn’t and don’t give a good GD about our laws and Constititution…and to remedy this…which must NOT be allowed to happened…I frankly could give a GD about the laws and rules in place. That’s why we always lose…well not this time.

    Ben Kent in reply to caseoftheblues. | January 2, 2021 at 1:14 am

    Yes, action is need. The longer this festers – the harder it is to change.

    Action must first be to unite in a way that focuses people on fundamentals. Taxation without Representation is abhorrent to the principles this country was founded upon. It also happens to be a focal point of power b/c Money = Power. Ending systemic Bias against taxpayers is the rallying point. Taxpayers have been increasingly marginalized for the last 40+ years. Look at NYC for example. 54% of NYC voters pay ZERO tax. The politicians know it. That’s why NYC leaders do not give a damn about taxpayers and have driven the City off a fiscal cliff. Detroit was the first major city to go bankrupt. Other Cities/ states are headed in the same direction.

    Post on all blogs and tell friends.
    Join Union of Taxpayers. Start a new Chapter of the Union.
    Change comes from Grassroots.
    This is the way to real change.
    And taxes affect everyone – independent, democrat, republican. Over 200 million Americans pay taxes.

Why do we insist on playing by the rules while the other players are not? It isn’t strength of character, but foolishness to hold fast to rules that will end in the destruction of yourself and your children.

    Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | December 31, 2020 at 7:43 pm

    If we don’t play by the rules then what is the god-damned point? In what sense would Trump be president, if he is not elected according to the constitution and the relevant laws? He wouldn’t be. He’d have no authority, and the military would have no duty to obey his orders. And they wouldn’t.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:15 pm

      The point, at this time, is to win. That’s all the left has ever cared about.

      Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:17 pm

      Playing by the rules requires all parties playing to do so. When a substantial portion are cheating, then there are no more rules.

      Do the right thing, ignore the results of fraud. It’s that simple.

      When the other side decides to play fair then we can all play by the rules again.

      Right after we eliminate the FBI, DOJ, and the “intelligence” agency’s, all anti-American to the core.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Barry. | December 31, 2020 at 8:32 pm

        Add CIA, NSA, IRS and the Fed Reserve to your list also.

        mark311 in reply to Barry. | January 1, 2021 at 3:06 am

        @Barry, prove the fraud. That’s the problem. That’s been wholely unsuccessful. Why because the evidence is so limited.

          drednicolson in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 4:10 am

          Limited, my foot.

          Every possible procedural roadblock has been thrown up to deny fair hearing to legal challenges. It’s a full court press to run out the clock.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 7:35 am

          @drednicolson

          It hasn’t been procedural, the issues have varied from cases to case but the reality is the case presented to the courts was weak. That’s why bipartisan decisions have been made. As I’ve said elsewhere I have yet to see a coherent argument that shows election fraud at any scale.

          The unapologetic conservative in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 8:02 am

          Not a single case has been dismissed on its merits.

          mailman in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 10:13 am

          300 to 400 plus people have signed affidavits to witnessing election fraud. Let me also remind you that is 300 to 400 more people than ever witnessed Russian interference in the last election.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 11:17 am

          @ mailman

          Those avidavits were not credible . They were in many cases shown to not actually understand what they were talking about, in some cases were written by deranged people and in other cases found to be based on hear say.

          Please don’t bring up Russia, that’s a rabbit hole of rant right there. If you can’t see that Trump has acted inappropriately then you are using a different standard to these two things. The very fact that Guilliani has been running around with know Russian agents trying to dig up dirt on political rivals should really shock you, it did me. The association with wikileaks which is now known to in effect be a front for Russia, the open admittance from Trump about with holding funds, Trump refusing to issue his tax records, using the rose garden for political stunts, openly undermining the election before it even happened – a ploy straight out of an autocrats handbook btw. All that adds up. I’m sure Trump has done some good things but when someone is that careless with democratic values then I lose any respect for them and any willingness to vote for them.

          drednicolson in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 11:49 am

          @mark311

          You obviously only see what you want to see. This endless arguing from invincible ignorance is tiring.

          Quit it.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 1:29 pm

          The fraud has not been formally proven, because when you fish with a 6-inch net you won’t catch many 5-inch fish, even if you can see them with your own eyes.

          There can be no possible doubt that there was massive fraud. The evidence for it is right before everyone’s eyes, but the courts won’t accept that evidence. If you can’t produce every fraudulent vote and individually prove each specific vote’s fraudulence in court, it won’t be heard. The main evidence for the fraud is simply the fact that the system has been deliberately designed, by the Democrat Part, to make it impossible to prove the fraud.

          And if you think Trump has “acted inappropriately” in office, you’re living on a different planet. I can think of many inappropriate things he has done in his past, but none that were official acts as president. What “known Russian agents” has Giuliani been “running around” with? And supposing it were so (which I will not without evidence), what exactly is wrong with that? So long as the evidence they produce is good, who cares where it comes from? After all, Clinton’s fake “dossier” came from Russian agents too.

          The Rose Garden is there for the president of the day to use. Trump has used it no differently from any other president. And he has no obligation at all to release his tax returns. There’s nothing inappropriate about his refusal.

          Barry in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 1:51 pm

          Hey commie shill mark311, you’re full of shit and a liar.

          alaskabob in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 8:52 pm

          I steal a car and lock it in my garage. The police come by and say I stole the car and want to see in the garage. I say “no”. They go to a judge with data, sworn statements and witnesses… even video.. and the judge dismisses as “hearsay”.

          By the way… you may not want to start money laundering as that is exactly what happened in the election. Only difference is state and national officials condoned the laundering.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:44 am

          @millhouse

          With regard to the election fraud I’ve yet to be given a good source which shows a good case in fact I’ve not been given any source that lays out the case. Given this is supposed to be the fraud of the century I’m mightily surprised that’s its just drop drip drip of hocus pocus. Provide a source and I’ll look at it it in depth.

          Regarding Trump gosh where to start. Let’s start with basic principles, you have to admit he hasn’t exactly been a traditional president he has broken many many norms, including democratic norms. Saying there is going to be fraud in advance of the election is a classic authoritarian ploy. Not releasing his tax records, not separating his business from public life, the cronyism, the loyalty tests before good advise. Given the foreign loans coming up there is a reasonable justification for wanting to know how in debt he is. His lies I mean seriously people here accuse all sorts of other people for lying – he has surpassed everyone else by a country mile. There are lists and lists of fact checking against Trump claims. Its nuts how many lies he has told. As for Guilliani google Andrii Derkach. Slight correction he is a known ukrainian acting as a Russian agent. I could go on but to be honest my gut feeling is you need to look for yourself. I don’t think what I say will change your mind you need to do the digging yourself.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:49 am

          @milhouse

          Forgot to address the rose garden. Actually it is different no president has used it for political purposes. He is the first to use it for campaigning. Same for his tax records all previous presidents have released them. I ask why and the answer is because he has something to hide.

      Dathurtz in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:32 pm

      The rules do not exist as an end in themselves, but rather a means to have a society that allows us to live our lives with as much meaning as we are able.

      The rules are already broken. If you want the rules we are supposed to have, then they will have to be put in place again. This is impossible if we, ourselves, follow the rules while others do not.

      No set of rules is a suicide pact. If our rules don’t allow us to fix a fraudulent election, then they aren’t worth having in any case.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:49 pm

      To clarify further, we are more than some set of rules for a “Constitutional Republic”, although lawyers are probably expected to say that’s the most important thing.

      We’re also 3 million square miles of temperate land with excellent growing areas, a fairly good amount of mineral resources, lots of shoreline including some of the world’s best ports, etc. Lots of infrastructure built on there, although much of it in need of repair. And a few hundred million people living on that land.

      Let’s not get distracted by abstractions and forget the real things that are up for grabs.

        Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | December 31, 2020 at 10:39 pm

        Who is “we”? The United States of America is its constitution. That’s what creates it. And it is nothing more than a set of laws.

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 2:40 am

          Well that’s easy.

          “We the People” of the United States of America. And all the land and resources we have here. The people and the land and the stuff aren’t the Constitution, nor the legal entity.

          But we have to get it straight, so the tail isn’t wagging the dog. For all its good and bad points, the Constitution is the tail not the dog.

        mark311 in reply to artichoke. | January 1, 2021 at 7:53 am

        What you refer to is just stuff, that doesn’t make you or I American does it

      stablesort in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 8:50 pm

      “…what is the god-damned point?”

      To keep the United States of America intact. A blemish added to her patina perhaps, but that’s much better than a civil war or even worse, a complete surrender.

        Milhouse in reply to stablesort. | December 31, 2020 at 10:37 pm

        Overthrowing the constitution would by definition end the United States. The USA is created by the constitution, and does not exist without it. And overthrowing it entirely is exactly what you are advocating.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 2:17 am

          Please.

          The constitution was overthrown long ago.
          The FBI breaks the law at will.
          The DOJ breaks the law at will.
          The former president, obama, broke the law at will.
          The former Sec of State, clinton, broke the law at will.
          The CIA breaks the law at will.

          The entire federal government has become a criminal enterprise.

          The entire federal government illegally surveilled the president of the United States and no one is in jail for it. It started at the top and worked it’s way down.

          Slaves operated under the constitution and you think that we should all willingly enter a state of slavery.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 11:53 pm

      What rules under British law did the Declaration of Independence fall under? Milhouse… I know we must have the law to provide structure for a country but we have seen illegality at so many levels that this is a coup by another name. This is the age old battle of “do laws make people “good” or do good people create laws”.

      Historically, how did Germany’s Jews overcome the Nuremberg laws? What legal recourse was successful? Same for the citizens of the Soviet Union.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 12:13 am

        Our founders didn’t waste time debating UK laws when push came to shove.

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2021 at 3:10 am

        I think this is where the disagreement lies. You se to believe that the court system has failed, except that it hasn’t. It was presented with poor evidence and the conclusion was there wasn’t fraud. I’ve yet to be given a decent source or set of sources showing a coherent argument for the case of fraud. And going by the level of stupidity and general crazyness by the Trump legal team I’m inclined to say that it was a Trump show, not a real legal challenge.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 4:12 am

          You haven’t bothered to watch and listen to the evidence of fraud – brazen massive fraud – being presented.

          And there are websites that list the evidence.

          Media denial of fraud is actually political activism and propaganda.

          drednicolson in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 4:21 am

          Except there was no presentation of evidence. You can’t present until you get to trial. Technicalities around “standing” and other procedural roadblocks have been use to keep legal challenges, regardless of merit, from getting to trial.

          You seek to blame Trump’s legal team for striking out when the reality is, they weren’t allowed to even get up to bat.

          Quit it.

          Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 7:22 am

          The lack of chain of custody of hundreds of thousands of votes is enough.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:50 am

          @ Uncle Samuel

          Are there indeed , could you provide a link as I’ve yet to find a decent source that establishes fraud.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 3:58 am

          @drednicholson

          They have had opportunity to present evidence. Each time it’s been treated with contempt because it’s so poor.

          For example https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-544631–,00.html

          That’s one link to one judgement. The problem is Trumps legal team has made wild claims in public but the case presented has been different. The evidence is a limited and poor to say the least.

          Do you really think the judgements would have gone that badly if there was genuine evidence? When you drill into the details the evidence presented is deeply flawed.

      The game is completely rigged. We are the only ones playing by the rules which you insist is the only way to play even if we lose. The constitution, as you keep arguing, is then in fact a suicide pact.

      Since the constitution is no longer the protector of our God-given rights, we then resort to our founding document: the Declaration of Independence. Step one: RE-REGISTER AS AN UNAFFILIATED INDEPENDENT RIGHT NOW!

      Stop rejecting step one because it isn’t THE silver bullet! It’s only step one and it is bigger than you think. For a large majority of Americans to enthusiastically reject the very “two” party arena the game is being played makes a huge statement!

      Yes, I know. Trying is the first step to failure so let’s not try anything. Let’s just stand there and let the steamroller crush us.

      caseoftheblues in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 8:53 am

      Your don’t seem to grasp that you just argued that Biden should not then be sworn in….smh

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 9:00 am

      Milhouse, you sound like some guy that is getting pummeled with brass knuckles and sliced and dice with a switch blade and patting yourself on the back for adhering to the Marques de Queensbury Rules. If the other guy is cheating then you might have to cheat harder and do some not nice things to rectify the situation.

    drednicolson in reply to Dathurtz. | December 31, 2020 at 7:53 pm

    When the other team’s breaking all the rules, and the officials who are supposed to enforce them equally refuse to do so, you walk out of the game. Complaints would fall on deaf ears and rulebreaking back would bring only retaliation from the duplicious officials. You’ve been set up for abuse; don’t stick around and take it.

      Dathurtz in reply to drednicolson. | December 31, 2020 at 8:54 pm

      Do you concede the field? What do you do if the cheaters try to force you to stay? What do you do of you leave?

      Do you drive the cheaters from the field and reclaim it as your own? What do you do if they resist? What do you do if you drive them off?

      Do you continue to live your life and suffer whatever comes your way? The game analogy only goes so far. This isn’t a game.

      It’s time for you theorists to understand a simple fact: THIS ISN’T A FUCKING GAME1!!!!!!!.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL not be infringed.” — US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

We know that in practice, “SHALL” is regarded as optional by government authorities. Therefore, Pence is not governed by any requirements, as born out by all sorts of government infringements and “gun control”.

    mark311 in reply to dominigan. | January 1, 2021 at 3:13 am

    That clause isn’t a total carte blanche allowance to bear arms. So when you stop acting like it is. No one wants everyone to have guns that would be daft.

      Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 7:23 am

      Wait…I thought words meant something.

      MarkS in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 9:03 am

      Don’t try to put words into the Constitution that are not there

        mark311 in reply to MarkS. | January 1, 2021 at 11:23 am

        ‘well regulated’ … What do you think that means? To you it might mean everyman women and child can carry a gun but to me it means something different. It means that some form of regulation needs to happen I don’t won’t criminals having guns or those who are mentally insane, or perhaps someone under the age of 21, maybe those who are blind, or perhaps there should be a reason you have an AK 47 fully loaded in a school. The USA has a tragic history of allowing dickheads guns with out checks and balances. We apply it to politics why don’t we apply it to guns?

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 1:37 pm

          Now you’re just lying. Nothing in the constitution says or in any way implies that the right to keep and bear arms may be regulated. That’s not to say it can’t be; but the constitution doesn’t say so.

          The first amendment is also subject to some limits, very constrained ones, so it stands to reason that the second may be too. And some regulations simply don’t infringe the right, so they’re permissible, just as some regulations on speech don’t abridge that right.

          But to claim that “well-regulated” applies to the right, and gives the government power to restrict it, is just an out-and-out falsehood.

          It is the militia that ought to be well regulated, and two separate clauses in Congress’s enumerated powers give it the power to do that regulation. And the need for a well-regulated militia is the reason the 2nd amendment gives for why it’s so important to protect the RKBA.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 4:13 pm

          Before you share any more your “wisdom” with us, go read the Heller decision, dip*it.

          “the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 4:51 pm

          Mark,

          The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the government may not regulate the ownership or possession of weapons, including firearms. The first part of the amendment is merely justification for the second part of the amendment. This is amply illustrated by the language involved. If the Founders had wished to allow the federal government to regulate the ownership and possession of arms, then it would not have said that the government shall not infringe upon those practices, which would involve regulation. Now there is a legal circumstance where a person coud be denied the “right” to own or possess a weapon. That is if the person is in the legal custody of another. This could be a criminal serving his sentence, who would technically be under the guardianship of the state, or a person under the legal guardianship or another due to age [usually minor children] or mental infirmity which makes him a danger to himself or others.

          The problem ith Heller I and McDonald is that the SCOTUS rewrote the 2nd Amendment to allow for the infringement upon these enumerated rights in a wider range of situations than the document or the common law upon which it is based allows.

          Ben Kent in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 1:27 am

          ‘well regulated’ militia = means “well-trained” militia.
          It’s an old military term. Look it up.
          It does NOT mean that regulations (as in ‘restrictions’) should be placed on gun ownership.

          Think about it. If you think “well regulated” meant placing restriction on gun ownership – it would directly contradict the phrase that gun rights “shall not be infringed”.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 4:10 am

          No I’m not lying that’s a direct quote, the legitimate debate is whether the clause allows militia to bear arms as such would you need to be part of a militia. Setting that aside the clause is pretty vague. The fact remains that the clause includes those words ‘well regulated’. I don’t think it unreasonable to infer some limitations on the basis I set out.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | January 3, 2021 at 3:26 am

          @ mac45 @ ben kent

          Good points thank you

      drednicolson in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 11:58 am

      It isn’t a total cart blanche to regulate lawful firearm ownership out of existence either. There must be a wall to hit and that wall should lean as far toward liberty as possible.

        mark311 in reply to drednicolson. | January 2, 2021 at 4:11 am

        Agreed , it’s a question of where you draw the line. That’s the debate, I’ve no strong position on that other than criminals and the mentally unstable beyond that idk but in principle agree with your statement

      CommoChief in reply to mark311. | January 1, 2021 at 8:56 pm

      mark311

      Holy scrap you got that one right. The 2nd amendment isn’t unlimited. No nukes, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons in private hands.

      Otherwise …pretty much everything else is ok. Don’t forget the intersection of Congress power to issue letters of marque and reprisal; in essence hire a pre-equipped and pre-trained civilian force.

      As an example if no one had a sloop or small frigate size ship with cannon and trained gunners then Congress couldn’t exercise that power. Why insert that Power into the Constitution if they didn’t see the potential need?

      That intersection of a Congressional Power and individual rights shows us that, in context, the 2nd amendment is virtually unlimited in terms of categories of arms.

        mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | January 2, 2021 at 4:23 am

        Sarcasm noted ha, I’m pretty sure if you drive a tank or carried a rocket launcher into a mall you couldn’t rely on the 2nd amendment. I’m sure someone with more knowledge will add more but the right to bear arms has relatively severe limits on the type of weapons. In fact there are lots of debates on the meaning of the second amendment and for the most part because it’s such a limited clause the context would define it to a large extent. There was an interesting article in the Atlantic awhile back https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/555101/

        Not saying I agree/disagree just very interesting

So where do we go for our day in court? Not to ant state courts or Supreme Court. Not to any state legislatures. Not to the Media and not to Congress. I’m getting that feeling from 1776. Government is by the people.

    RNJD in reply to r2468. | January 1, 2021 at 3:49 am

    You had your day(s) in court. 50+ of them…and lost every single time. Because election fraud could not be proven. It’s over. Pray for our country. That’s Professor Jacobson’s message, and it’s the correct one.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to r2468. | January 1, 2021 at 4:19 am

    That was one of the last points made by President Trump’s legal team – that he has been denied justice and legal recourse, has not been allowed to present evidence in court.

The public shall construct pillories before next election. Election officials caught violating election laws shall be placed in said pillories. That’s how I would use the word “shall”.

    artichoke in reply to r2468. | December 31, 2020 at 8:17 pm

    Pshaw! We already have tools far better than pillories available (at least til recently) at any Walmart. They don’t get used. Nor would new tools.

Another argument on this entire process here:

Rep. Gohmert’s Lawsuit Explained; What Will Happen on Jan. 6?—Rick Green

https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-gohmerts-lawsuit-explained-what-will-happen-on-jan-6-rick-green_3640009.html

Please explain, if this is a dead-end, then, why Sen. Kamala Harris hasn’t resigned her Senate Seat yet? And, please, don’t tell me that she’s worried that a black woman won’t be seated, or she’s keeping it warm for someone else. Barack Obama and Joe Biden both resigned their senate seats a week after their election to office in November 2008. Ms. Harris must know something the rest of us don’t.

    Why should she? If I were a senator who’d been elected vice president I would not resign until Jan 20.

    Technically she doesn’t have to resign at all. The vice presidency is not an “office under the united states”, so the VP can sit in congress. Of course she will resign, not because she has to but because it would be really stupid for her not to. But there’s no reason she should do so before taking her new office.

      james h in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 10:55 pm

      It would be awesome if she did not resign if it meant that she could not cast a tie-breaker vote. Or would she get to cast 2 votes in that case?

        txvet2 in reply to james h. | December 31, 2020 at 11:46 pm

        Agree. Didn’t read your comment before responding.

        Milhouse in reply to james h. | January 1, 2021 at 2:00 am

        The constitution doesn’t say whether she would get to cast two votes, so I imagine she would not. Which is exactly why it would be stupid of her not to resign. So she will.

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 11:45 pm

      Then under your scenario she would be occupying TWO seats – that of a California Senator and that of the presiding VP and would find herself in the position of being able to override her own vote.

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 1, 2021 at 2:18 am

        Not override. At most she’d be able to cast two votes, one deliberative and one casting vote. But standard parliamentary procedure is that a presiding officer who has a casting vote does not also have a deliberative vote, so I imagine that would be the case here too. Which is why it would be stupid for her not to resign her current seat, once she become the senate’s president.

      Ronbert in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 9:09 am

      If she does not resign does she get 2 paychecks?

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 12:46 pm

      “Technically she doesn’t have to resign at all. The vice presidency is not an “office under the united states”, so the VP can sit in congress.”

      Not true. It’s an open question whether the President and VP are “officers under the United States.” Thankfully we can thank the leftists who tried to impeach Trump for violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, the language of which is functionally identical to the language of the Incompatibility Clause, for making this fact clear.

      ARTICLE I, SECTION 6, CLAUSE 2
      “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

      ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8
      “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the UNITED STATES: And no Person holding ANY OFFICE OF PROFIT OR TRUST UNDER THEM [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

      It is clear the language of the Incompatibility Clause and Emoluments Clause is co-extensive; if anything the definition of what constitutes an office under the the United States is even more expansive. It is any office, without qualifications such as one of profit or trust (should such an office exist).

      Three sets of plaintiffs have tried to sue DJT for violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, with the goal of impeaching him. The plaintiffs in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump sued in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, but there case was dismissed because the court ruled that as individuals they lacked standing. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed lower court, but neither court ever addressed the scope of the “office” language and if it applied to elected officials (the dissenting judge and the Congressional Research Service both agreed the matter has never been settled). The plaintiffs filed for certiorari and their petition was still pending as of the November election; whether it’s still pending is up in the air because…

      In Blumenthal v. Trump the plaintiffs sued in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Conveniently they got Emmett Sullivan for a judge; the guy with the hard-on for convicting Trump or anyone associated with him (he refused to dismiss the charges against Flynn even after the appeals court directed him to). Sullivan ruled that since the plaintiffs were sitting members of the House and Senate they had standing in their official capacity to sue, and that the “office” language of the Emoluments Clause did reach the President. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia vacated both rulings, the ruling on the “office” language as moot. The plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari and the court denied their petition.

      In District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump the plaintiffs brought both individual-capacity and official-capacity claims against DJT and in two separate judgements the judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue; both in their individual capacities and in their official capacities. Judge Messitte also ruled that the Emoluments Clause and its “office” language applied to the President. The Fourth Circuit, again in two separate rulings, reversed the lower court and ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in both their individual and official capacities. The higher court never addressed Messitte’s ruling that the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to the President. The plaintiffs filed a petition of certiorari, which was pending after the election. But like the first case I discussed is likely to be dismissed as moot, just as the second case was dismissed as moot.

      If the President is holds an “office under the United States” for the purposes of the Foreign Emoluments Clause then the Vice President holds an “office under the United States” for purposes of the Incompatibility Clause. An “office under the United States” can not be one thing under one clause, then another thing entirely under another.

      On the other hand I can not dismiss the likelihood a TDS-addled judge would defy both the language of the Constitution and the laws of logic, specifically the law of non-contradiction (a single thing can not be both “A” and “not A”), and rule that elected officials (both the President and Vice President, who are not only elected officials but both elected IN A SINGLE ACT OF VOTING in the exact same election) are “officers under the United States” for purposes of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. But the term “officers under the United States” only applies to appointed officials subject to the Appointments Clause for purposes of the Incompatibility Clause.

      Should Kamala Harris fail to resign her Senate seat (admittedly the odds are astronomically tiny she won’t resign) I’d sue in the District of Maryland and contend she is violating the Constitution. Hopefully I’d get Judge Messitte, and I’d like to see how he ruled on my standing in my individual capacity, and what sort of irrational gymnastics he’d (or she; doesn’t matter) be willing to engage in to rule that “office under the United States” means entirely different things depending on whether or not the alleged office-holder’s last name is Trump.

      If it does mean different things then the Constitution is a dead letter, and the judge will merely be confirming we are longer citizens of a constitutional republic but subjects living under an arbitrary, capricious ruling class.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 1, 2021 at 1:42 pm

        It’s only an “open question” in the sense that no court has yet ruled on it. But the evidence is clear: neither the presidency nor the vice presidency are “offices under the united states”, which means the foreign emoluments clause does not apply to them. The president is subject to the domestic emoluments clause, but not the foreign one. And both the president and vice president can serve in congress, if they’re crazy enough to want to.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 2, 2021 at 11:02 am

          “But the evidence is clear: neither the presidency nor the vice presidency are “offices under the united states”, which means the foreign emoluments clause does not apply to them.”

          What color is the sky on your planet? The evidence is so clear that since neither the President or Vice President hold “offices under the United States,” and therefore the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to them, that two federal judges ruled that the Foreign Emoluments Clause DOES apply to them? And that two Federal Circuit Courts refused to even address the substance of their rulings?

          I actually agree that the weight of the evidence is heavily on your side. But so what. In reality 2 federal district judges have recently demonstrated that they can gleefully ignore nearly 250 years of legal precedent, practice, as well as the clear language of the Constitution and rule the President (and therefore the VP) is subject to the Foreign Emoluments Clause. Logic would therefore dictate that they are also then subject to the Incompatibility Clause. When the rulings these district court judges were appealed the higher courts refused to touch those rulings. Why not, if as you say the issue is so clear?

          The obvious answer is that the judges whose authority we are supposed to respect because their offices were created by the Constitution have ruled the Constitution is null and void. They flaunt that reality, that they can destroy the legal foundation of their own authority, because they know they can get away with it the federal government has overwhelming force on it’s side, nothing more. Yet you insist we, and only we, have to play by the rules our self-appointed overlords use as toilet paper because we “live in a constitutional republic.” Again, on what planet? The Constitution has been replaced by the words, “Might makes right, and what are you going to do about it?” Rep. Swallwell made the same point when he sneered at and threatened gun owners stating their intention not to comply with the Democrats’ clearly unconstitutional gun confiscation schemes.cognitive dissonance on a fatal level.

          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

          “Democratic Rep. Swalwell warns gun owners that ‘government has nukes'”

          Continue to insist on the fantasy we live in a constitutional republic if you like no matter how many times leftists in the legislature, the judiciary, and w/the Biden-Harris administration tell you in both word and deed that you do not. Or, rather, if there is a constitution it’s the same constitution the state slaves* of communist dictatorships lived under.

          “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”

          Mao Zedong

          * The old cold war and more descriptive and accurate term for the subject peoples of communist regimes that has only fallen out of favor because Western leftist remain in love and wish to rehabilitate a system of oppression that by any objective standard was a greater evil than Nazism.

          mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2021 at 6:06 am

          @Arminium

          What case are you referring too?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to EQWhipplewart. | January 1, 2021 at 12:07 am

    She knows she can never be VP or Pres.

    Barrack Hussein will be the last illegal alien to be criminally jack-hammered into a position he is not entitled to…..

    Why do you think his past passports had to be destroyed…..

    cdwoodworth in reply to EQWhipplewart. | January 1, 2021 at 8:50 am

    Kamala Harris is not resigning her seat probably for the simple reason she’s on the Select Committee on Intelligence and hence gets briefings. If she’s worried about a “Trump Coup” or even if she’s worried the fraud is being discovered or whatever of a million reasons, it provides her a pipeline to guard her and Joe’s “Intelligence Flank” up until the 20th.

Turn out the lights, the party’s over

Something I don’t understand, maybe it is a complete hole in the process, is how any of the legislature’s rules governing elections can be enforced. As we have seen in many places, rules were set up and completely ignored – sometimes ahead of the start of voting and sometimes at the time of voting.

After votes are cast, seemingly nobody has any standing in court and judges don’t want to do anything that might seem like overriding votes (although fraud itself is overriding valid votes). Legislators can make some noise about it, but almost no legislatures are in session during election season so it seems there is no way for them to do much to hold the executive branches accountable until maybe well after the EC votes are certified in Congress. I suspect the fraudsters realized this and knew that there is really no way to stop them, and that is why there was no fear in running the fraud right out in the open when it was needed.

If there is no way to enforce the legislature’s rules, there will never again be a fair election. This election cycle, Republicans actually gained seats because the amount of fraud needed to beat Trump took everything they had. In 2022 they will be able to focus all of the fraud on getting and keeping the seats.

What can we do now? I would say to try to get our red battleground state legislatures to tighten up the voting process, but the process will be ignored anyway so now what?

    Milhouse in reply to james h. | December 31, 2020 at 10:45 pm

    A state legislature would absolutely have standing to sue over this, in state or federal court. But it would have to be the legislature itself bringing suit, not just a bunch of legislators acting on their own. Both houses would have to pass a resolution authorizing their presiding officers to bring the suit on their behalf. Individual legislators, even if they’re a majority of the legislature, have no more standing than anyone else.

      james h in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 10:53 pm

      Milhouse if the legislature is not in session, can both houses even file a suit? A special session would probably need to be called by the governor, who is in charge of the branch of government that violated all the rules, so not likely to happen.

      txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2020 at 11:57 pm

      The logical extrapolation of which would mean that NO private individual would have the right to file suit over a violation of law because they weren’t the legislature that passed it. I don’t think that’s the way it works.

        Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | January 1, 2021 at 2:26 am

        No, that is not logical at all. A person has the right to file suit only when he specifically has been wronged. That’s the case throughout our justice system, except where specifically changed by statute. Nobody has the right to sue just because the laws aren’t being followed, and they don’t like it. The first thing you have to show in a lawsuit is how it’s your business, how you suffer more than the general public.

        And that’s why Texas couldn’t sue over PA allegedly usurping its legislature’s prerogative. The PA legislature could sue over that, but nobody else can sue on its behalf, for the wrong done to it. A would-be elector could sue for the wrong done to him, if he believes he was elected according to the rules the legislature set, and his win has been stolen from him. But you or I, or the state of Texas, cannot.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2021 at 4:02 pm

          At this point, it’s all deck chairs.

          Sure, the “legal system” never seem to see things our way. Either that’s because we’re always wrong 100% of the time, or because the legal system is a bought and paid for joke whose job is to keep us shut out of justice. We suspected where we were going when SCOTUS started making rulings on behalf of emanations and penumbras that no one else had ever detected. We knew the territory was getting hostile when a not-a-tax was suddenly “a tax,” despite the fact that it originated in the Senate. The landslide of “sit down and shut up” rulings occurring over the last two months alone show there’s no longer even an attempt to hide the fix.

          So if some of us talk about taking actions that have already been ruled against by the Supreme Court, it’s because we’re no longer interested in maintaining the premise of subservience. The time to resist is before the handcuffs are snapped onto you — anything later than that is a lost opportunity.

I was kinda hopin’ Trump would squeeze the puss out of Biden with regard to the Biden family crime syndicate and especially his bag man Hunter. Snatch the whoring coke-head in a mid-night raid and shuttle him off to GitMo and water board him to give up the goods. Grab Biden’s brother too.

Then offer the Biden syndicate a conditional pardon: Joe confesses the election fraud and concedes to Trump on or before 1/6.

I mean, if they’re gonna play dirty, let’s cleat up and meet ’em mid-field.

The other thought I have about all this, great power is vested in the presidency. If Trump doesn’t use it to scuttle this fraud, then he doesn’t deserve to be president. I’m not talking about a hot war, but he needs to do more than appeal to what so obviously is a corrupt judiciary at the state and federal level. And the spineless State legislatures? I hope Trump has a plan C.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MrE. | January 1, 2021 at 12:00 am

    Patience Grasshopper. The unmasking is necessary for all of those who didn’t already know about Pence.

    lc in reply to MrE. | January 1, 2021 at 8:06 am

    I am hoping he busts everything wide open and declassifies everything. Let it all out. Perhaps we’ll then have dozens and dozens of corrupt politicians resigning (or fleeing) or put in jail (that one may be a long shot). Justices too (Roberts).
    This could be the last recourse. Let’s hope it happens before the 6th.

Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. A fraudulent election perpetrated by foreign actors in concert with domestic actors is a crime. I know this because the left said so for the last four years. There was even a special counsel appointed to investigate. Sorry, when the left attempts a coup using a corrupt election, the Constitution must be protected. Opening and counting an envelope full of fraudulent electors (if definitively proven to he fraudulent) is no different than the government sending me my stimulus funds using Monopoly money. Neither are legal tender. Calling a fraudulent elector “certified” only means the “certifier” is as corrupt and complicit as the criminals who perpetrated the fraud. They were shown the evidence, warned, but certified anyway. Dressing a pig in a duck suit doesn’t make the pig a duck, and calling a fraudulent elector “certified”doesn’t make it legal.

First of all, I’ve never understood why Milhouse is allowed to post here. He should go back to Mother Jones where he belongs. Secondly, the Democrats stole this election with both hands in broad daylight. We no longer have a representative republic if this is allowed to stand. Therefore it does not matter if the military steps in, the country is gone anyway.

    Dathurtz in reply to Isolden. | January 1, 2021 at 7:27 am

    Of course he should be allowed to post here. I often disagree with him, but he is almost always thoughtful and coherent. This isn’t TD.win.

    BEdwards in reply to Isolden. | January 1, 2021 at 7:50 am

    I agree wholeheartedly about Millhouse. It gets aggravating having to scroll past his trollish comments which seem in many instances to be just a bid for attention. I can’t imagine spending so much time on a leftist, liberal forum always trying to be the lone dissenting opinion.

    Perhaps in 2021, LI might offer the option to block commenters.

    mark311 in reply to Isolden. | January 1, 2021 at 8:23 am

    Millhouse can post because he makes reasonable coherent points, he doesn’t insult anyone as far as I’ve seen. If you haven’t got a decent counter argument then that’s your problem.

    mailman in reply to Isolden. | January 1, 2021 at 10:24 am

    Because Millhouse is a constitutional scholar and possess the largest brain of all posters here. I hear talk on the street his brain is evenarger than Barry’s brain ??

    Isolden: I’ve never understood why Milhouse is allowed to post here.

    Perhaps the blog rules should be changed to only allow people who agree wholeheartedly with one another.

    We don’t often agree with Milhouse, but he is generally thoughtful and typically endeavors to support his claims with evidence.

    I’ve run a few forums (phpBB and Simple Machines) and WordPress blogs over the years, dating all the way back to FidoNet and running a dial-up text-based BBS on a 386sx with a 2400 baud modem running BinkleyTerm, Maximus and Squish mail-tosser (only nerdish geezers will relate). Long enough to recognize patterns of online behavior, thread development trends, recognition of and among members, etc. Such patterns of behavior are where Godwin’s law originated and while attributed to the “internet”, Godwin’s law dates back to Usenet newsgroups. I’ve often thought it would make an interesting behavioral study and paper if it also included some psychological and temperament evaluation of member archetypes. Were there ever a book about online behavior, I’m sure it would sell all of 2 or 3 copies on Amazon. 😉

    Comment sections can be like chum for a ravenous readership; often triggering readers to post (and re-post) their favorite rants. Then comes the piling-on and tendency to stir one another up where sometimes logic, reason, and the law are abandoned for giving voice to our more passionate solutions; e.g., “string ‘em up” or “boil them in oil”. My own tendency in commenting is to joke, which only conceals what I’d prefer to do – and that is to shoot the communist traitors between the eyes.

    Milhouse seems to me someone who while thoroughly disgusted by the goings on in Government, fairly consistently brings us back around to the reasonable application of law, process and judicial precedent. In that this blog is owned and run by a professor in the law and many readers are attorneys, Milhouse often serves to give a reality check to some of us non-lawyer types and to rein in (rain on) our fiery fun. Much like a wet blanket in a yarmulke. More than once he’s called me on my pointy-headed thoughts and that’s fine with me. I’d still break bread with him if ever the opportunity presented because while his pragmatism occasionally blunts my unchecked zeal, I like to think at the core he continues to be for the cause of legal justice and honest government. What’s that they say about “he who is not against us is for us” or the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

    There’s also the ‘scroll’ button for when I want to skip his pragmatism and get back to burning effigys. 😀

      alaskabob in reply to MrE. | January 1, 2021 at 9:05 pm

      Believing in and practicing within the “rule of law” is admirable, but these are “man’s laws” and judged by men with all their shortcomings and flaws. There comes a point when one must realize that these laws are not the final arbiter of life. The abuse of power throughout history has often been under the authority of “the law”. The shock is that it has finally and fully come to pass here. The illusion of upholding the “rule of law” has been shattered and we have passed a terrible milestone. How far down the road past that milestone before one realizes it was a one way path is an individual issue.

        To reject the law and rule of God, and also the law and rule of men allowed by God to govern godless men (Romans 13:1), would seem to place us in His crosshairs as a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.

        Jeffrey Prather and Col. Allen West have some interesting views about that with regard to secession. The Constitution binds us together as law abiding states. There is no need of law abiding states to secede thereby leaving the union of states to the lawless. Rather, lawless states have by their own declarations and actions already seceded. And even those states aren’t completely lawless, within each is what Jeffrey Prather calls “feral cities” that have dragged entire states into chaos by their woke insanity.

        Prather suggests it wouldn’t take much to bring feral cities to heel through expulsion from the Union and isolation … such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, L.A., Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. who once left to their own devices would quickly fail while the rest of the country prospers together under constitutional rule.

    txvet2 in reply to Isolden. | January 1, 2021 at 1:25 pm

    I frequently disagree with him and certainly can’t argue on even footing given that I’m not a lawyer, but the problem most of you seem to have is that he forces you to actually think. If you feel compelled to skip over his comments, that’s absolutely your prerogative. I do so frequently when I’m not interested in the subject or when he’s deep into the weeds on some trivial or irrelevant point. However, we have enough parrots in the world and I see no benefit in participating in an echo chamber, so if you prefer censorship, try Facebook or Twitter. They’ll be happy to accommodate you.

Gohmert v Pence is a lawsuit that will help everyone, no matter how it is decided.

Now that a Republican sues a Republican there is a chance for a valid legal decision, which can become precedent and thus prevent a possible future progressive-on-progressive “friendly” lawsuit to change the election rules in their favor. We have seen how that works out in the largely successful bad-faith efforts of leftists to unconstitutionally change election laws through consent motions of two progressive pseudo-parties to a pseudo-suit that are helped by progressive activist judges that go along with the coup because that’s what they want to happen.

Sadly, we seem to be at a point where not legal reason but will prevail. If that is correct, it would be fatal to unilaterally disarm and let the leftist win.

So, what you seem to be saying, sir, is that the crooks just have to run out the clock and Mr. Pence has no choice but to count all votes, including those that are illegal and stolen, yes?

Do I have that right?

If that is the case, sir, then we are royally screwed and the USA is over and done with.

If there is no recourse, then why bother?

The Chinese have won, I guess.

With all the respect I have for our Good Professor, and the learned legal eagles that comment here, I have to believe that the people who set up that entire electoral college procedure with the electors, with the certification process,, with all of that complication,, they had to have an OH shit scenario in mind. I cannot think of a bigger OH SHIT than what happened, and we all know it happened. The written document is but a faint echo of what those men had intended, and it has become very, very dim and hard to hear. I guess that is what SCOTUS is supposed to do,,, they are the ones that were supposed to listen to that and figure it out. Hell, we cannot even figure out what the hell they meant by Presidential eligibility requirements…

Well, SCOTUS has refused. My own view as a citizen, as a voter is that our FF meant for the electors and the VP to adjudicate a clear fraud. SCOTUS has proven to be as useful as a fish bicycle. My view doesn’t matter.. I get it. It is hard to face what is coming.

    Dathurtz in reply to amwick. | January 1, 2021 at 7:29 am

    The degree of failure startled and enraged me.

    mark311 in reply to amwick. | January 1, 2021 at 11:29 am

    Democracies are fragile, they thrive on mutual respect and understanding and die on bitter rivalries

      Arminius in reply to mark311. | January 2, 2021 at 6:05 pm

      No, Democracies are volatile, not fragile. In fact, they are self-immolating. Which is why the founders took on board the lessons of history and rejected democracy as possibly the worst form of government, and you won’t find the word once in the Constitution. So antithetical is democracy to our constitutional order that by naming themselves the Democrat Party, Democrats have self-identified themselves as the subversive party. And no group of subversives have lived up to the objective of subversion as well as the American Democrat Party.

      ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
      “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

      In the 1920s we had a very large immigrant population. Just as in the 1940s the U.S. armed forces were employed to racially integrate society,* the U.S. Armed forces were a vitally important institution for integrating immigrants into society.

      You can download the War Department Training Manual No. 2000-25 (1928) from a variety of sources.

      “TRAINING MANUAL } WAR DEPARTMENT,
      No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928.
      CITIZENSHIP
      Prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff
      This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training
      The use of the publication “The Constitution of the United States,”
      by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
      The source of other references is shown in the bibliography.
      PART I — GENERAL
      SECTION Paragraphs
      I. Introduction ———————————————————————- 1-7
      II. Mission of Course ————————————————————- 8-11
      III. Time Allotted ——————————————————————- 12
      IV. Method of Instruction ——————————————————– 13-20
      SECTION I INTRODUCTION Paragraph
      National defense ———————————————————– 1
      Citizenship training ——————————————————- 2
      Individual initiative ——————————————————- 3
      Foundation of citizenship ———————————————— 4
      Social phase of citizenship ———————————————– 5
      Economic phase of citizenship ——————————————- 6
      Philosophy of American Government ———————————- 7
      1. National defense. — Under the national defense act as amended in 1920. the War Department, among its many other duties, is charged with the task of recruiting and training the young men of our Nation through enlistments in the Regular Army, voluntary enlistment in the Reserve Officers Training Corps of high schools, colleges, universities, and in the 30-day training period in citizens’ military training camps throughout the nine corps areas of the United States. The combined average yearly strength of these various units approximates some 260,000 young men between the ages of 16 and 25 years, the most critical period in the determination of their real value as citizens of our country.
      It is. therefore, essential that the training of these young men embody, with their instruction in military science, at least a basic course in the science of government and the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the individual citizen, in order that they may be returned to civilian life better equipped as the defenders of the institutions of our Government in time of peace as well as in time of war.

      120. Comparative analysis. — The following comparative analysis shows the principal characteristics of the three forms of government:
      Autocracy:
      Authority is derived through heredity.
      People have no choice in the selection of their rulers and no voice in making of the laws.
      Results in arbitrariness, tyranny, and oppression.
      Attitude toward property is feudalistic.
      Attitude toward law is that the will of the ruler shall control, regardless of reason or consequences.
      Democracy: A government of the masses.
      Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
      Results in mobocracy.
      Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
      Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
      Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern left. Bernie Sanders, AOC, and their “democratic” socialism (democratic socialism is simply the same socialist hell as any other form of socialism with a lie in front of it). I give you Antifa, #BLM, cancel culture, Andrew “Granny Killer” Cuomo, Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom, and their war on anyone who isn’t a dependent of the state (i.e. small business owners) and any source of authority outside of the state collective (family, religion, etc.). No one could say the founders didn’t know what they were doing when they rejected democracy in favor of…

      ” Republic:
      Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
      Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
      Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
      A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
      Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
      Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
      Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
      A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
      Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. — Atwood.
      121. Superior to all others. — Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
      Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
      Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”
      Madison, in the Federalist, emphasized the fact that this government was a republic and not a democracy, the Constitution makers having considered both an autocracy and a democracy as undesirable forms of government while “a republic * * * promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
      In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person. In a republic they assemble and administer it by their respective agents. — Madison.
      The advantage which a republic has over a democracy consists in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice. — Madison.
      The American form of government is the oldest republican form of government in the world, and is exercising a pronounced influence in modifying the governments of other nations. Our Constitution has been copied in whole or in part throughout the earth.”

      I keep expecting you to get something right, mark311. After all even a stopped clock is right twice a day; even a blind hog finds a nut now and then. Not you. Here you are advocating for a form of government we don’t have and don’t want. All we have to do is look at Seattle or Portland and see what a disaster democracy always becomes. Ironically you lament that Democracy is destroyed by “bitter rivalries.” Duh! “Bitter rivalries,” or “factionalism” as the founders called it, are baked in the cake in a democracy. You want a democracy? Then you want “bitter rivalries.”

      “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
      ― Alexis de Tocqueville

      When Congress discovers that fact, it will (and did) turn the country into as much as possible a Democracy as opposed to our Constitutional Republic. They’ll remove the safeguards. Now, if the reports are correct we have a SCOTUS (and other judges) afraid to enforce the rule of law because they are afraid of the mobocracy we can see roaming the streets of permissive leftist-run cities with our own eyes.

      https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/

      “…Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake held a press conference Saturday alongside community and religious leaders and asked for peace as hundreds marched in Baltimore in honor of Freddie Gray.

      But when one reporter asked to comment on how Baltimore police responded to the protestors she said she instructed officers to allow protestors to express themselves and that ‘WE ALSO GAVE THOSE WHO WISHED TO DESTROY SPACE TO DO THAT AS WELL.’…”

      Obama promised “foundational transformation” and the subversive party has delivered on that promise.

      * It needs to be emphasized that while the Army was segregated and had “colored units” the Navy did not. From the Civil War until WWI the Navy was integrated. But then the nation elected the raving racist/subversive Woodrow Wilson who segregated the Navy (and the Civil Service). Some black Sailors were grandfathered in; when the U.S. entered WWII there were black Chief Petty Officers who were Torpedomen, Gunners, Quartermasters, etc. But after WWI black Sailors could only enlist in the Messman (Mess Attendant, abbr: Matt) or later Steward (Steward Mate, abbr. StM) branches; servants in the officer’s mess, black Americans served with foreign nationals recruited in the USN Asiatic Fleet AOR. White Sailors couldn’t join the Messman/Steward branches, and black Sailors couldn’t be anything else. This caused all kinds of personnel problems during WWII. Of course depending on their physical abilities and/or their previous civilian experience they could have battle (general quarters) stations serving in gun mounts, fire control directors, engine rooms, damage control parties, etc., but when the ship secured from GQ it was time to change out of battle gear, back into their black bow ties and white waiters jackets, and back to serving the officers breakfast, lunch, dinner, and coffee in the wardroom.

      During WWII there were race riots because black Sailors resented the fact that they could only go to sea in such a menial job, and ashore they were used only as general laborers (after the Port Chicago disaster their resentment shot through the roof). White Sailors would have killed to get a break from sea duty under near constant combat conditions and resented the fact that most black Sailors had continuous shore duty which they couldn’t get. Senior commanders such as Admirals King, Nimitz, Halsey, Spruance who had served in the Navy for years before WWI/Woodrow Wilson knew black Sailors could perform as well at sea in the various ratings as white Sailors but the racism at the top of the subversive, err, Democrat Party meant they couldn’t properly use the available manpower.

      Basically everyone had a valid point except the racists, err, subversives, err, DEMOCRATS!

      You and your ilk sowed the wind, mark311, you democracy fan you. Now reap the whirlwind. The antifa/#BLM/cancel culture “bitter resentments” you asked for.

        mark311 in reply to Arminius. | January 4, 2021 at 9:21 am

        @ Arminius

        No, Democracies are volatile, not fragile. In fact, they are self-immolating. Which is why the founders took on board the lessons of history and rejected democracy as possibly the worst form of government, and you won’t find the word once in the Constitution. So antithetical is democracy to our constitutional order that by naming themselves the Democrat Party, Democrats have self-identified themselves as the subversive party. And no group of subversives have lived up to the objective of subversion as well as the American Democrat Party.

        I think you misunderstand the use of the term democracy. The USA has a constitutional republic if you want to get technical and picky. This doesn’t change the fact that its been established with democratic values in mind ie the will of the people democratically electing figures of authority.

        Im really not clear why you have referenced military persons and there impact on integration. I dont see the relevance.

        The statement below appears to be loaded, there is a mixture of technical description and opinion. Im guessing youve copied and pasted and added notes? There is a pretty weak analysis of each government type which is somewhat broad. That said i used the term Democracy in its broad sense so i guess fair play. Fundamentally though no matter how you look at it the USA is governed by elections. We the people via the elections give authority to others within certain parameters. Those parameters are in part established by the constitution and in part by respecting the spirit of democracy.

        120. Comparative analysis. — The following comparative analysis shows the principal characteristics of the three forms of government:
        Autocracy:
        Authority is derived through heredity.
        People have no choice in the selection of their rulers and no voice in making of the laws.
        Results in arbitrariness, tyranny, and oppression.
        Attitude toward property is feudalistic.
        Attitude toward law is that the will of the ruler shall control, regardless of reason or consequences.
        Democracy: A government of the masses.
        Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
        Results in mobocracy.
        Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
        Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
        Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

        The next statement makes no sense, democratic socialism is quite different from say the USSR, or say China. Im not clear what hell you refer too – i mean some of the principles they want are pretty popular – such as universal healthcare. You seem rather prone to lumping a lot of disparate groups together too.

        Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern left. Bernie Sanders, AOC, and their “democratic” socialism (democratic socialism is simply the same socialist hell as any other form of socialism with a lie in front of it). I give you Antifa, #BLM, cancel culture, Andrew “Granny Killer” Cuomo, Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom, and their war on anyone who isn’t a dependent of the state (i.e. small business owners) and any source of authority outside of the state collective (family, religion, etc.). No one could say the founders didn’t know what they were doing when they rejected democracy in favor of…

        ” Republic:
        Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
        Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
        Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
        A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
        Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
        Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
        Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. — Atwood.
        121. Superior to all others. — Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
        Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
        Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”
        Madison, in the Federalist, emphasized the fact that this government was a republic and not a democracy, the Constitution makers having considered both an autocracy and a democracy as undesirable forms of government while “a republic * * * promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
        In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person. In a republic they assemble and administer it by their respective agents. — Madison.
        The advantage which a republic has over a democracy consists in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice. — Madison.
        The American form of government is the oldest republican form of government in the world, and is exercising a pronounced influence in modifying the governments of other nations. Our Constitution has been copied in whole or in part throughout the earth.”

        The above statement is an interesting and to some extent you are correct, i think you’ll find that whilst widely admired countries dont just copy and paste the constitution across. It has flaws like many legal documents.

        I keep expecting you to get something right, mark311. After all even a stopped clock is right twice a day; even a blind hog finds a nut now and then. Not you. Here you are advocating for a form of government we don’t have and don’t want. All we have to do is look at Seattle or Portland and see what a disaster democracy always becomes. Ironically you lament that Democracy is destroyed by “bitter rivalries.” Duh! “Bitter rivalries,” or “factionalism” as the founders called it, are baked in the cake in a democracy. You want a democracy? Then you want “bitter rivalries.”

        Again as i set out in the beggining you have clearly misunderstood my use of the term democracy.

        “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville

        When Congress discovers that fact, it will (and did) turn the country into as much as possible a Democracy as opposed to our Constitutional Republic. They’ll remove the safeguards. Now, if the reports are correct we have a SCOTUS (and other judges) afraid to enforce the rule of law because they are afraid of the mobocracy we can see roaming the streets of permissive leftist-run cities with our own eyes.

        There is no evidence of the above statement. The judiciary merely did the obvious which was look at the cases and go ‘what a load of shit’ no evidence and poor legal arguments.

        The next few statements appear to be unrelated, i assume copied accidentally.

        You and your ilk sowed the wind, mark311, you democracy fan you. Now reap the whirlwind. The antifa/#BLM/cancel culture “bitter resentments” you asked for.

        You presume to know my mind, yes im a fan of democracy its fundamentally how the country operates technicalities aside. You have no idea what my view is of antifa, of cancel culture of BLM. So instead of presuming you might be better of asking.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to amwick. | January 1, 2021 at 1:56 pm

    The judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the 3 branches.

    Now it is owned by Traitors.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    TX-rifraph in reply to TX-rifraph. | January 1, 2021 at 9:21 am

    Have we now gone in a full circle? The deep-state traitors have destroyed what we had. Do we cooperate with them or do we get the ship back on course “By any means necessary?” Law is a weapon to a Marxist. They want us to simply defer “to the law” regardless of how corrupt it has become. Listen to them.

ANALYSIS
It seems that the controlling procedure next week will be the following:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

And as long as there’s at least one republican from all states, the quorum criterion will have been met; thus, the Dems can’t stage a sudden walk-out if subsequent laws aren’t followed by Pence.
*

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ruling-in-gohmert-lawsuit-could-be-big-game-changer-for-vote-count-on-jan-6-expert-says_3639789.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-31-4

The lawsuit specifically challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Electoral Count Act which directs how Congress should vote on objections to slates of electors. The lawsuit argues that the Act overrides the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment, which directs the House to vote by state delegations rather than via individual members.

https://www.ktre.com/2020/12/31/vp-pence-requests-court-deny-gohmert-lawsuit/

“The Vice President—the only defendant in this case—is ironically the very person whose power they seek to promote. The Senate and the House, not the Vice President, have legal interests that are sufficiently adverse to plaintiffs to ground a case or controversy under Article III,” the response states.

Thus, the two indicia of hope are related to the travel of the POTUS [who returned early instead of hanging around Florida for his annual party] and the Veep [who won’t be visiting Eretz Yisrael].

***

Thus, Pence can initiate the proceedings and note challenges as each state’s status is reported in alphabetical order; once we get to Arizona and it’s kicked to a 2-hour house/senate debate, he can then rule that irregularities preclude trusting the Electors; all hell will then break loose, as this occurs in the other five states.

When they break into delegations, one can anticipate that Fitzpatrick will vote with Dems, negating Pennsylvania [because it’s a 9-9 split]; doubt other states are comparably positioned, so the GOP should emerge victorious, as the electoral theft is rectified.

Let the Dems rail against this all they desire [including riots], and let The Donald delve into the Deep State Bureaucracy during the next two years; note that Sen. Marsha Blackburn has advocated for term-limits within the underlings embedded in the Administration [a pursuit The Donald would assuredly relish].

DISCUSSION

The point about the flexibility of “shall” in the 2nd Amendment could be invoked, assuming the only controlling verbiage is the 12th Amendment.

In other contexts, I argued that Sullivan wasn’t a potted-plant regarding Flynn, merely serving ministerially; I wanted the case to persist just as had occurred with Ted Stevens, thereby forcing Durham to ACT [one hopes].

Similarly, the presiding officer isn’t a neutral force and, thus, “shall” open envelopes and then disqualify those from six states [perhaps adding New Mexico], for the CONSTITUTION is silent upon whatever procedure is to be followed.

Furthermore, it’s plausible to anticipate that the decision of the chair wouldn’t necessarily be subject to a challenge from Congress; it would be the peak of irony that Pence could prevail without presentation of all the evidence of fraud … yielding the state-level delegation votes “immediately.”

ADDENDUM

The following completes the database in a disinterested fashion; it doesn’t seem my scenario is violated by either piece.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40504.pdf
skips, for whatever reason
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-biden-electoral-count-act-1887/615994/

How about we all get to work for the mid terms in 2022? Lots very winnable seats out there. Not to mention the effects of reapportionment among the States and redistricting within States.

Push your State legislatures and Governors for a return to reasonable election laws. See TX as an example that will pass court scrutiny, d/progressive legal challenges.

Get to work on finding out how you can serve as a poll watcher or even as an election ‘judge’. Maybe decide to investigate running for local county commission.

Any or all of those things would be much more productive than moaning about the 2020 election. Get to work to put yourself in position to prevent this ‘theft by a thousand cuts’ from reoccurring.

    Rsklaroff in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2021 at 10:14 am

    adopting this policy prematurely reinforces prospect fraud will flourish

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2021 at 3:33 pm

    How about we not give into stupid and go all Pollyanna doubling down on feeding a system we already know has zero integrity?

    You can’t fix the system by hanging little buckets with holes in them underneath bigger buckets with holes in them.

    The only way to win here is offense, not defense. Concentrate on identifying and punishing the individual actors guilty of this coup. If the “formal” justice system will not cooperate, go extrajudicial.

    Yeah, it’s radical, but anyone who needs this pointed out to them at this point is deluding themselves.

      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | January 1, 2021 at 8:14 pm

      Henry,

      That seems a bit much. Maybe we should put some effort into winning elections v simply not losing elections instead.

      You and the other would be revolutionary posters seem unable to get past a tainted election loss. 2020 isn’t unique, we have faced this situation previously. We got past Kennedy v Nixon.

      IMO we as a nation are better positioned in 2021 than 1961 to recognize, isolate and defeat the d/progressive threat electorally and institutionally. Remember, this is a federal system, States retain some degree of sovereignty.

      Trump did a superb job with judicial appointments. That is a huge factor moving forward. The r, weak kneed as many are, do control the majority of State Legislature. That is no small thing with reapportionment and redistricting upcoming.

      Biden isn’t likely to serve out his term. K Harris, even as an ‘incumbent’ President, is a horrible candidate. The friction between the ‘progressive’ wing and the ‘moderate’ (or at least those who pretend to be moderate) wing is going to destroy their party.

      The spoils system isn’t big enough to satisfy the head counting for the various combinations of race and gender which will be demanded. Heck d are mad because a guy with a ‘Latin’ name was appointed to replace Harris.

      The detractors are mad because a ‘male latino’ is replacing the only ‘female African-American’ in the Senate. They are trashing G Newsom, the far left Gov of CA for appointing the first ‘Latino’ to the Senate from CA.

      The same is playing out with Biden and his Cabinet nominees. There simply ate not enough chairs to satisfy the demands of the d/progressive fictional ideas of gender and insisting on classification by ‘race’. They will destroy themselves.

SUMMARY

I’m aware of the intense scrutiny this issue has received, now that the SCOTUS remains inert.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/31/pence-overturn-election-results-lawsuit-453207

I know that this may be a manifestation of wishful thinking, but most commentators consider the relevant election law of 1887 to be cumbersome [and arguably self-contradictory], contradictory to the 12th Amendment [which was properly amended by the 20th Amendment, not by statute], and therefore subject to challenge [for the first time].

I alluded earlier to my minority opinion that Sullivan could have been unleashed to scrutinize the DoJ, just as he had when he unearthed fraudulent prosecution of Ted Stevens; to follow is one of my op-eds [replete with hyperlinks] that assessed the import of that dynamic.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/electing-any-democrat-potus-empowers-obamagate-grifters-part-13-flynn-f-u/

Electing any Democrat-POTUS empowers ObamaGate Grifters – Part 13 – Flynn [f/u]

difference between shall and may and their purposeful misuse really shown in usps creations.
cotus art 1 sec 8

The Congress shall have Power (snip)
To establish Post Offices and post Roads

in this post people purposely treating “shall” as “may” and in my example treat “may” as “shall” on purpose.

While I agree that VP Pence has no choice but to present the list of electors as given to him by the various states, I have to take exception to some of the arguments concerning the power of the states in regard to accepting the appointment of electors.

As Milhouse notes, the states are granted the power to appoint electors by whatever manner they choose. However, the manner of choice must adhere to two principals. The first is the principal that the electors must be appointed in the manner prescribe by state law, which should include laws governing the conduct of elections. The second is that such state actions must conform to the the guarantees embodied in the US Constitution and applied to the states via the 14th Amendment.

In the first case, the states do not have the luxury to ignore claims, especially valid claims, of violations of state election laws. These HAVE to be investigated by state governments, including the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch. If any violations are found, then the certification process has to be stopped, until such time as it can be determined that such violations did not materially affect the outcome of thee election. This did not happen in this election, though. The state governments ignored valid claims of election violations which could have materially affected the outcome of he election.

In the second case, due to the existence of the Electoral College and the apportionment of votes assigned to each state, the Federal Government has a duty to guarantee that the action of each state are fair and equitable and all of a state’s requirements for election of the POTUS were adhere to. As we have seen, it is possible for a very small number of votes, in a very few critical jurisdiction to materially affect the results of an election. The federal judiciary has the authority to stop state certification of electors until a valid claim of wrongdoing did not material affect the results of the election. Again, this did not happen, in this election. The courts ignored evidence and became very creative in justifying lack of standing. Federal LEAs simply ignored the whole thing. And, the Congress has yet to act, if it lawfully can act.

In other words, the entire system, put in pace to guarantee free and open elections, is MIA in this case. None of it worked, because it was shutdown at the source. By doing this, the powers-that-be have placed half the citizens of this nation in the position of having to decide if they will have to resort to extralegal means in order for their grievances to be heard, let alone redressed. When the government fails the citizens, then it usually gets changed by those same citizens. Will that happen here? Who knows. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Pence can interpret electoral “votes” as votes not produced by fraud.

If Pence were counting money, he would not count counterfeit money as real money.

A Lawfare Sophist by any posted name is still a Lawfare Sophist. A Rose is still a Rose, not a Hamburger, and a pile of $hit is not Mashed Potatoes, despite the mystical pleasure of dicing words to infinity.

Mental gymnastics and legal jujitsu are not solutions for a dying republic: Who Watches the Guardians of Law when they stonewall legitimate grievances? The system is systemically corrupted by the bureaucrats. The Gordian Knot cannot be unraveled.

To see where this is headed, Now is the Time to Read Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago.

The 12th Amendment (12A) and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA’87)as they relate to the President of the Senate’s (VP Pence) role in counting the electoral votes can only be PROPERLY understood within the context of Article IV – Sect.4 of the Constitution …the so called “Guarantee Clause”.

The federal government is constitutionally mandated to ensure that EVERY state keeps and maintains a republican form of government …NO exceptions. The foundation of a republican form of government is free and fair elections ….without them, there is no republic.

While the state legislatures are constitutionally obligated to choose the method they will use to select the electors, it is the Federal Government, in the act of acknowledging receipt of and then counting the electoral votes, sent to it by the states, that formally ‘GUARANTEES’ that elections in each state were conducted freely and fairly. That’s how these three unique segments of the law (12A , ECA’87 , Article IV – Sect. 4)are interconnected.

This can be the ONLY reason that the states must submit their electoral votes to the Congress, so that the Federal Govt, in the person of the sitting VP as President of the Senate, can place its imprimatur on the entire process ….In turn, this also means that if, in between the certification process (this year it was December 14th) and January 6th, when the votes are received and counted by the Vice President, evidence comes to light that casts doubt on the legality of a (or some) state’s certification(s) then it is both the duty AND the obligation of the President of the Senate to acknowledge this by refusing to count the votes from said state(s).

It is in this way, that the Federal Government ensures (or, rather Guarantees) that free and fair elections were conducted and that each state is properly maintaining a republican form of government.

I believe that VP Pence will throw out the votes from the seven contested states and then allow the procedures laid out in the ECA’87 to get played out …I personally don’t think he HAS to because I believe ECA’87 is unconstitutional as it relates to the plenary powers of the President of the Senate (PoS) but I also realize that VP Pence is a creature of the institution and , instinctively, collegial …so he will initiate the procedures in ECA’87 and allow the Democrats to protest.

The problem for the Democrats is that they will then be in the position of having to prove that there was no fraud …by putting them on the defensive, it will allow the Republicans to show all of the evidence from a position of strength …

Either way, President Trump wins ….

“The certificates must be opened by Pence, and the votes must be counted (it’s unclear who does the counting, but the votes must be counted regardless).”

Maybe he could up the ante by ruling that they must be personally counted by Sheila Jackson Lee. That should draw the suspense out an additional few months.

    Arminius in reply to henrybowman. | January 2, 2021 at 6:23 pm

    Great idea! I’m sure Sheila Jackson Lee will get on it just as soon as she finishes investigating NASA for covering up the exact location of the driving range Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon set up on their mission to Saturn.

    Maybe 2030 or so.

Legal Insurrection is totally unable to deal with this illegal insurrection. Sorry guys, but you have to admit that all your legal training and experience is coming up short to defend against such an immense act of criminality on a nation-wide scale. The legal safeguards have been violated or ignored to achieve the single goal of irreversibly grabbing total power of the national government through both state and national criminality. The legal profession asn system have no clothes. When the legal system has failed… and it has failed big time… there are limited options. I see all of this like the Olive Branch proposal to King George III that went no where and forced July 4th and what followed. Laws to not make poeple good… good people make good laws to abide by. That is all smoke and mirrors now.

“The votes shall be counted” ….

VP Pence has been made privy to evidence that certain votes are, likely, fraudulent ….This is indisputable ….His plenary powers on January 6th make him the ONLY judge that matters on that day ….so, yes, he shall count the votes ….but ONLY those he deems merit counting …

With full knowledge that there are votes that were improperly certified, as evidenced by the fact that Republican legislators in 7 states felt strongly enough about it to send in an alternative slate ….VP Pence would be in dereliction of his responsibilities and duties under the Guarantee Clause if he were to accept and confirm receipt of votes from states where fraudulent elections were certified.

    CommoChief in reply to PugHenry. | January 1, 2021 at 8:34 pm

    PugHenry,

    Unfortunately the r Legislatures in those 7 states did not act as a sitting body to vote to send an alternative slate. The actions of some members of the State Legislature as individuals or even as a collection of individuals doesn’t get it done.

    If these folks had the stones to send a true alternative slate of electors by voting in a session of the legislature then VP Pence would, arguably, have a choice.

    They didn’t so he doesn’t. There isn’t any alternative for him to choose precisely because these people decided to engage in theater v concrete action. If you live in one of these States ask your Legislature why they did that. Are they simply trying to fool folks who don’t know the difference?

    This kubuki theater display is all too familiar. ‘Look what we did….oh it didn’t work because we don’t have enough votes…send us more campaign money so we can get it done next time…with more $ we can save x or do y..’

    Don’t fall for this scam. Don’t let your State Legislature off the hook if you live in one of the States with ‘disputed’ election processes. Don’t let these folks act like they did anything meaningful, they could have but chose not to do so.

      PugHenry in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2021 at 8:49 pm

      Chief,

      The primary benefit (for us) is that the alternative slates serve as ‘smoke signals’ (that assignation was for your benefit) to the VP that there is something amiss in their state …(else every election, EVERY losing delegation, would see fit to do the same thing) …

      Keep your eyes on the ball …we are in uncharted waters …EVERYTHING is in play ….Pence is ‘Pope for a Day” on January 6th …His duty under the Guarantee Clause is to ensure that the states properly conducted the elections in such a way that they ensured that they are still ‘republics’ …That’s his ONLY job is to confirm that …by counting the votes properly ….

        CommoChief in reply to PugHenry. | January 2, 2021 at 10:15 am

        PugHenry,

        Ok, for argument sake lets say your theory is correct; the VP can as ‘presiding officer/President of the Senate’ on the day the electoral college votes from the States are to be opened and counted has complete plenary power.

        So in 2024 Trump wins the election processes. However, VP K Harris decides that the votes from several swing States are ‘tainted’. She refuses to count those votes which means the Biden/Harris ticket is re-elected.

        That is the reality of your theory. That isn’t how it works. There must be a legitimate competing slate, at a minimum, for the VP to make a ruling about. There are no legitimate competing slates of electors. Thus there is nothing to choose.

        I wish the r State Legislature in those States had voted as a body to send a competing slate. They didn’t have the stones to do so. Instead they choose to perform kubuki theater that doesn’t have any legitimacy in order to appear as if they were doing something. Don’t let their bs fool you.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 1, 2021 at 6:49 pm

HMMMM……

Horrible deplorable raynbene

Some out there think Pence is “betraying” Trump

by opposing Gohmert on that lawsuit,

and he is NOT doing that.

He simply disagrees the VP has sole authority to overturn the electoral results.

It will be challenged anyway !

Too many doomsayers out there ! Only the lamestream media is reporting it anyway, so they want you to keep on despairing !

HEAR

HEAR

TO THAT LAST PART.

Dakota
@
Do you think a lawyer of his stature and career would risk everything he’s built on a couple tweets ?

Dive into the rabbit hole and look into the connections between Roberts, Epstein, Maxwell. How many coincidences does it take for you to think something is up?

Pence is no longer the VP. Problem solved.

A political battle is what you have when you have a fair and honest election process. A military battle is fought against an foreign enemy. Civilian organizations protect us (in theory) from domestic enemies. We have both foreign and domestic enemies attacking the political process so it is no longer a political process (fair and honest) but an attack via a corrupted political process.

A military battle does not have to be kinetic. It can be covert utilizing software, traitors, and other vulnerabilities of an enemy.

If the civilian institutions fail to protect us from the foreign power and domestic traitors, the military has a sworn duty to do so.

This is NOT a political process as was intended by the Constitution. It is corrupted by foreign and domestic enemies by a planned attack and corrupt traitors. If the political controls fail, the military controls must happen.

But, a fraudulent Certificate is invalid.

    CommoChief in reply to RoyalWulff55. | January 2, 2021 at 10:26 am

    It isn’t enough that you and I believe the election processes in several States was tainted or corrupt or fraudulent.

    If we are in a hardware store and both witness a guy looking at hammers, who gets asked a question by a person, take a hammer off the rack and beat that persons brains out that person isn’t legally guilty of murder until after a trial and verdict. If a jury nullifies by refusing to vote for conviction he isn’t legally guilty of murder.

    If you live in one of these 6 States that are clearly suspicious and very likely had a deficient election process under State law then hold your State Legislature accountable for their failure to take meaningful action. They could have done so but chose a bunch of meaningless bs theater instead.

SCOTUS has shown that they have the SCROTUM of a hummingbird. If there are no laws, then chaos will reign! Pence needs to do what’s right.

The Supreme Court has batted away all lawsuits from the Trump side without airing evidence or testimony. If VP Pence took the action this post recommends against, the Democrats would run off to Mommy SCOTUS to make the booboo go away. If we we really have enough Justices who are conservative and not just inert, this would be a fine occasion to bring out the facts at last, in such a way that would force an actual DECISION (gasp!)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend