By James Arlandson | The American Thinker
The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was
always a long shot. Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so
much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right
electors. Why? Because the power is already in the hands
of the legislatures to do this.
Though we are non-lawyers, let's read these laws
together, interpreting them minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem
incapable of doing). The first federal law for our purposes, titled
"Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors," says:
If any State shall have provided, by laws
enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its
final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of
all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or
procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days
before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made
pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior
to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern
in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as
hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by
such State is concerned.
So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says
that states may appoint electors after a controversy ("controversy or
contest"). Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so
egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate
in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed? That
definitely qualifies to become a "controversy or
contest." The provision opens the door to each state
legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors
("appointment of electors" and "ascertainment of
electors"). (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment,
but here this provision gives more clarity after a
controversy.) Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the "fake
winner," can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows.
What does each state law say? It's up to them
to tell us, because researching each state's law is too burdensome for average
citizens. But it is safe to assume that the states have
"plenary power" to appoint the electors of their choosing, particularly
when the Constitution actually says the state legislatures determine
things. The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the
U.S. Constitution — provides that "[e]ach 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." (Hat
tip.)
However, what about the "six days" in the
election law provision? The next federal law, in a section titled
"failure to make a choice before prescribed day," says:
Whenever any State has held an election for the
purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day
prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a
manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
The states can determine when they appoint the electors
"on a subsequent day" (not the next day). The phrase
"In such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct" gives
the states much leeway to select the right electors, which agrees with the
Electors Clause, cited above. And if the controversy in selecting
electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec. 14, then the
states can ignore the date and follow their need to further investigate fraud
and illegalities.
The whole thing can work out like this, apart from the
Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS.
The undisputed states vote electorally on Dec. 14, and
neither Biden nor Trump reaches 270, so neither one is the
winner. The five GOP state legislatures (Arizona, Michigan,
Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) of the six disputed states (minus
Nevada) say they need to postpone their electoral votes because they are
investigating fraud and illegalities. The legislatures perform due diligence
(they have been holding hearings to collect the evidence) and conclude that
fraud and illegalities unilaterally hurt Trump and helped only
Biden. Assuming that the Democrat Legislature in Nevada says
everything was legitimate, each disputed GOP state may reach this conclusion on
any day after Dec. 14 — say, on Dec. 27 or even Jan. 15. Then they
appoint electors who vote for the rightful winner: Trump (provided the
GOP-selected electors do not suffer from TDS). These votes are added
in to the votes cast on Dec. 14. Trump goes past 270 electoral
votes. He wins!
However, what happens if the disputed states cannot
select the electors, and neither Trump or Biden reaches 270? Then it
goes to the House of Representatives, and each state has one vote, and this one
vote is determined by the political makeup of the state
legislatures. The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, and the
Democrats have 19 (two are split). Trump wins again.
Therefore, we don't need SCOTUS to win, and we never
needed it.
So what happen next, and what can regular folks do
now?
First, we can keep up the pressure on the
legislators of those five GOP states to select electors who will vote for the
rightful winner, who is obviously Trump. Some of the members in
these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so the message must be sent that they
have to set aside their irrational opposition and do the right thing.
Second, Sidney Powell's legal team can continue with
their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting
Systems. Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get
rid of the flawed, rigged system. This goal is much more realistic
and easier to accomplish. The court cases will take a long
time. But that's okay, because they keep in the public view the
"fake president" and 2024, if Biden (unjustly) prevails.
Third, we must counter the left-wing pressure, including
their threats of violence, that will be thrust on these little known state
politicians. Without threats of violence on our side, we can still
stand firm to support and defend them.
The battle is not over. It was always going to
boil down to the legislatures without SCOTUS. If we keep up the
fight, we shall win with knowledge and the law on our side.
Please visit James Arlandson's website,
where he has recently posted Matt.
24:4-35 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple, Matt.
24:36 to 25:46--From the Second Coming to the New Messianic Age, Cosmic
Disasters = Apocalyptic Imagery for Judgment and Major Change.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/we_dont_need_scotus_to_win.html
________________________________
RELATED
ARTICLES
Supreme Court's Texas Ruling is Nothing Short
of Disgrace
By Howard
J. Warner | The American Thinker
Image credit: Picryl
public domain, image orientation modified.
Friday evening the United States Supreme Court decided to
not take the Texas lawsuit against four states over their application of
presidential election law. The Court only mustered two justices in favor
of taking the case: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The argument
against hearing the case was that Texas lacked standing to
sue Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Wow!
In a podcast titled “Is Secession Upon
Us?” Ben
Shapiro argued against the Supreme Court taking the Texas lawsuit. He
reasoned that under principles of federalism it would threaten our union if the
sovereign states could dictate the laws of other states without resulting direct
damages. This goes to one of the three principles of legal
standing. His concern considers that in the future, the Court under a
left-leaning majority would use this concept to attack more conservative states
and their laws. His thinking is reasonable and likely figured into a
rejection of the case by the seven other justices. Yet, I doubt that
this was the essential point in this case.
If we examine Marbury v. Madison (1803),
Chief Justice John Marshall set the principle of judicial review of
congressional laws. He determined that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 violated Article III of the Constitution by illegally enlarging the role
of the Supreme Court from an appellate jurisdiction to one of original
jurisdiction. His reasoning was excellent. But one must also
consider the political implications. President Thomas Jefferson, an
ardent opponent of last-minute appointments made by the John Adams administration,
would likely refuse to obey a writ of mandamus to sit Marbury as a judge,
rendering the Court impotent. He reaffirmed the ideal suggested by
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 of judicial review as a way of avoiding
a political risk and thereby strengthened the Court’s power. In this
case, standing was an issue because Marbury brought the lawsuit to the wrong
court.
I believed that Justice Roberts would only desire a
unanimous decision should the Court take the case. Interestingly the
three Trump appointees, demonstrating independence, refused the case.
Perhaps they saw merit in the Shapiro argument. Possibly they saw their
ability to render opinions in the future being questioned by intervening in the
presidential election on behalf of their benefactor. So, is there any
standing in this case?
A simple reading of Article III Section 2 makes the
Supreme Court the original jurisdiction in all cases of state-to-state
actions. It allows original jurisdiction between citizens of different
states. This is the root of the lawsuit claiming damages from illegally
cast votes in a presidential election. There is no requirement to take
any case and herein lies the real issue.
The argument fails to mention any corruption or
irregularities that could be remedied
by the Court. When a court chooses to avoid a
hearing, it can do so through the principle of standing. Standing,
according to the free legal dictionary by Farlex: "is
the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective
plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the
defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of
the general public in the resolution of the dispute."
The three liberals, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagin, and
Stephen Breyer would fear allowing the conservative majority any latitude in
this case. In such a case it usually takes 5 justices to hear the case.
The majority chose to avoid this case because it would be
politically dangerous.
What is the purpose of the Supreme Court? It was
intended to adjudicate the essential protections of our Constitution. A
fair and honest election must be a part of this protection. We are a
republic and select electors (that ultimately choose the president), who
are apportioned based upon the population of each state and jurisdiction.
Failure to follow the Constitutional prescription under Article II section 1
that grants the legislatures the sole power to choose electors renders this
clause useless and must be a permanent harm to citizens of different
states. Failure to hear this case is an abrogation of the Court’s role to
protect our institutions.
As to Shapiro’s concern that expanding federal power to
examine the sovereignty of the states misses a reliable fact: In the
future, the liberals will do so if it serves their interests, as they have
expanded federal power in the past. They do not need any precedent as
they create their own. After all, they ignore restriction in the
Constitution when it is convenient. They will use any means to accomplish
a desired result.
The Court did not have to dismiss the electors in the
four states. They could have ruled that the procedures used to change
election law in the four states was in violation of the clear wording in the
Constitution. Thereby, the Court would be reaffirming that
provision of the Constitution. They could have demanded evidence of the
harm. If they found insufficient evidence to change the election in each
state, they could then leave the result. Should evidence be sufficient
(and this is a high hurdle) to change the result of the election, they could
apply the Court’s 1892 ruling in McPherson v. Blacker to have the legislature
make the final decision via electors. Then they restore the political
responsibility of state’s elected officials, which the most important aspect of
federalism as a counter to expanded national power.
As to harm, it is not hard to see it. Any illegal
vote damages those who vote legally by distorting the outcome. This
occurs in the presidential election and in the election of representatives to
congress, where few votes might separate winners and losers (as in NY-22 in
2020). The Court can see harm when it chooses to do so since states’
citizens are not third parties.
However, on Friday, the Court’s majority demonstrated a
lack of fortitude. For a divided and skeptical citizenry this is
disappointing. An overwhelming majority of Trump’s voters (and a large
minority of Biden’s voters) feel this was a dishonest election. A
judicial review would provide some comfort to those citizens that perceive real
harm by the elitist establishment class. Failure to recognize this
feeling and examine it increases their discontent and isolation. Now the battle
cry of “stop the steal” will reverberate for years. Perhaps there is fear
that evidence of irregularities would demonstrate the real corruption of the
establishment and swamp -- the thirst for power. If this was a consideration,
it is disgraceful!
_______________________________
After SCOTUS's knife in the back, what Trump
must do now
Today, Donald Trump is the most dangerous man on the
planet. At this moment, America needs him more than he needs
America. Trump could shoot the biggest middle finger ever to the
entire nation, retire to a private island, or his penthouse, or his Florida
compound, overcook his prime steaks and douse them with ketchup, and really —
who could blame him? It's not as if he'll outlive his money. He
doesn't need us. He doesn't need anyone. He has
"F-U" money, and unlike others with big money — such as Nancy Pelosi
and Dianne Feinstein and everyone ever named Kennedy — he doesn't have this
sick psychotic need to rule over others for 60 years of government
life. Trump is the freest man on the planet tonight. He
needs nothing.
We, however, are no longer the freest people on the
planet. We need some help.
Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail
party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the
Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and
theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters.
As it stands, President Donald Trump faces what may be
the most distasteful test of patriotism any president has ever
faced. And it may be among the most important ever as
well. To be fair, this is not the horrible choice of instantly
killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant citizens — including kids — the
kind of decisions surrounding the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki
in World War 2. Clearly not. But on a personal gut level,
it must be an even more bitter choice. And again, in this, we need
him more than he needs us — or anyone, or anything.
We will find out whether or not Trump can maintain his
love of country and commitment to duty, just hours and days after that
country's core institutions have proven to be incredibly corrupt and immovably
stacked against him and his voters. Can he muster enough love of
America to overcome what must be a well earned deep well of hate and resentment
toward this nations' highest court, its entire media complex, the entertainment
industry, and the entire educational establishment? After four years
of unprecedented and unimaginable hate and lies from all quarters, can he
possibly still give a damn?
I'm not sure I could. And I don't have F-U
money to fall back on.
The question now is, will he muster the energy to do the
right thing? The right thing is to somehow swallow this absurd and
evil election result and soldier on to Georgia once again to try to salvage the
Republic by supporting two Republican senators hardly worthy of
mention. Donald Trump deserves better. We all deserve
better. And it is the fact that we all deserve better, and the fact
that Trump seems to care about such things, that gives me hope.
As we know, 50 thousand Trump voters can fill a stadium
or a huge field — whereas Biden can't draw a baker's dozen with free ice
cream. However, 400 thousand Biden voters can fit in a small mail truck,
or perhaps an even smaller thumb drive. It is this unsettling
knowledge that threatens the upcoming Georgia Senate races, and with it, the
future of the Republic. There's no doubt that Georgia conservatives
would defeat the Dems probably 60-40 in a fair fight. But what are
the odds of that?
The question Georgians must be asking is, why should I go
stand in line for hours to vote one time, when Stacy Abrams can find half a
million votes hidden in her 3 A.M. cheeseburger combo? It's a fair
question. My gut tells me that only one man can convince the
squeamish to keep on keeping on. It's the only man who can draw
Rolling Stone–sized crowds to a political rally.
I'm not sure we could have survived four years of Hillary
on the heels of eight disastrous years of Obama. I'm quite sure we
cannot survive four months or whatever of Joe Biden, followed by 44 months of
Harris-Pelosi-Schumer rule of Obama's third term. Trump can
survive. His family can survive. They have the means to
live above the fray. Most of us do not.
But I think and hope he knows that. And while
the passive-aggressive jerk in me — once removed — almost would take some
perverse pleasure in him giving the entire nation the middle finger, the
father, grandfather, businessman, and patriot in me hopes he is able to summon
his better angels for one more fight in Georgia.
It's a big, big ask. It's a lot to
swallow...so much that I can't imagine it. But Mr. President, we
need it. The extremely average Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue might
prevail without you, but it's a much safer road with you. You don't
owe it, but you didn't owe the last four years, either. So I'm
asking.
Edmund Wright is long time contributor to American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and Talk Radio Net and the author of numerous political books.
