By Bill Mears and Shannon Bream | FOX News
________________
COMMENTARY
By Frances Rice
Democrats routinely engage in election fraud in cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Pittsburg. Efforts to stop them have been futile. Until now. By trying to steal the election from President Donald Trump, Democrats have made a huge mistake. Trump is a fierce fighter and a champion of America who has pledged to battle the corrupt Democrats all the way to the US Supreme Court.
See the below statement by President Trump.
_____________
Statement from President Trump: “We believe the American
people deserve to have full transparency into all vote counting and election
certification, and that this is no longer about any single election. This is
about the integrity of our entire election process. From the beginning we have
said that all legal ballots must be counted and all illegal ballots should not
be counted, yet we’ve met resistance for this basic principle by Democrats at
every turn. We will pursue this process through every aspect of the law to
guarantee the American people have confidence in our government. I will never
give up fighting for you and our nation.”
_______________
RELATED ARTICLE
Horowitz: How Republican-controlled state
legislatures can rectify election fraud committed by courts and governors - By the proper power our Constitution
gives them
By DANIEL
HOROWITZ | The Blaze
larryhw/Getty
Images
Who determines the outcome of the presidential election
in a given state? Governors? Secretaries of state or boards of election
superintendents? The courts? Fox News' decision desk? Nope. The president wins
a state when electors selected by state legislatures conduct a vote in their
respective states on Dec. 14. Thus, ultimately, according to the Constitution,
the state legislators wind up serving as the kingmakers in a disputed election.
Endless pots of unverified mail-in ballots that often
fail to meet state election law standards weren't created overnight at 3 a.m.
on Nov. 4. They were created by a mix of illegal administrative actions taken
by Democrat administrations in the key states and state and lower federal
courts overriding long-standing state election laws. This has been going on for
years, but accelerated to a fever pitch over the past few months.
The Constitution, in Art. I, §4, cl. 1, gives state
legislatures the power over the times, methods, and procedures of elections and
provides no "public health emergency" exception that enables
governors or judges to override them and create a new system for elections. At
its core, this is why we have such post-election chaos, and it was by design –
set in motion for years by the courts and crystalized over the past few months
by using COVID-19 to remake the in-person voting electorate into a postal
ballot free-for-all, in what Justice Gorsuch described as the greatest judicial intervention in
elections in 230 years.
Well, now state legislatures can have their revenge and
have the final say, as intended by the Constitution. Mark Levin reminded his
audience today that state legislatures are the ones who choose the electors who
directly vote for president in each state.
-----
TWEET
REMINDER TO THE
REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF
ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN
COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED
CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
---
In case you think this is some desperate tactic Levin has
concocted because he doesn't like the impending results of the state ballot
tallies, he has been warning about this for months. While everyone slept as the
courts rewrote election law, Levin, a constitutional lawyer, warned on Sept. 18, "As in Pennsylvania, the
Michigan legislature is controlled by the Republicans. They must meet in
emergency session and exercise their Article II power under the federal
Constitution and seize back control over the election system."
In the run-up to the election, courts have allowed
"late voting, namely submission of ballots after Election Day so long as
they are postmarked before. In addition, a Michigan court allowed
ballot-harvesting under certain circumstances, which appears to have occurred
late at night in Wayne County. There has been a series of rulings or
administrative decisions in numerous states, which are contrary to state law
and in some cases federal election law, that enabled Democrats to upend the
electoral process – putting aside questions of additional fraud in the early
morning of Nov. 4.
Liberals say they want every vote to count, but having
votes submitted by insidious special-interest groups that violate the terms and
conditions of absentee balloting ensures that the lawfully cast votes of
individuals indeed do not count. We can debate the policy merits of some of
these anomalous voting procedures, but everyone agrees that state legislatures
control the process. In many blue states, they have already codified Democrat
priorities on ballot-harvesting, registration deadlines (or lack thereof), and
weak voter verification systems. But in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, there were laws on the books that were illegally ignored by the
Democrat governors and the courts.
In his 2005 book "Men in Black," Levin noted
that the reason the Supreme Court ruling on the Florida recount in 2000 was
final was not because the courts are supreme over the electoral process. Quite
the contrary, the Supreme Court was merely rectifying a mistake the state court
made, because Democrats were the ones who involved the courts in the election
process to begin with. But why did Al Gore ultimately accept the decision
in Bush v. Gore?
"The Florida legislature could have (and, in fact,
was preparing) to intervene and name a slate of electors if the Florida Supreme
Court continued to interfere with the election," wrote Levin on page 170.
"The legislature, which was controlled by the Republican Party in 2000,
had absolute authority under the Constitution to choose Florida's members of
the electoral college."
Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the Constitution stipulates that
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct" the electors to vote for president. The Constitution gives
Congress the authority to set the date of that vote, which, pursuant to 3
U.S.C. §7, is the Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential
election years. This year it is Dec. 14.
Notice how the Constitution specifically gives the job of
choosing electors to the legislature, and unlike with standard legislation,
there is no shared jurisdiction or responsibility with the governor, much less
some random state or federal judge. Charles Pinckney, one of the signers of the
Constitution from South Carolina, reiterated on the Senate floor on Jan. 23,
1800, how careful the framers were to cut Congress out of the process.
"The Electors are to be appointed by each State, and
the whole direction as to the manner of their appointment is given to the State
Legislatures," said Pinckney during a Senate debate. "Nothing
was more clear … that Congress had no right to meddle with it at all; as the
whole was entrusted to the State Legislatures, they must make provision for all
questions arising on the occasion."
Technically, this means that state legislatures could
even appoint electors and completely avoid or cancel out popular election
ballots we have today, at least for the president and vice president. This was
the practice in some states in the early days of the republic. As Justice
Joseph Story wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution,"
state legislatures choosing the electors themselves "has been firmly
established in practice, ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does
not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to
adjudicate upon it."
Indeed, in 1892 (McPherson v. Blacker), in
upholding Michigan's practice of dividing the state's electors by congressional
district (as done today in Maine and Nebraska), the Supreme Court wrote,
"The legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of
appointment, and might itself exercise the appointing power by joint ballot or
concurrence of the two houses, or according to such mode as it
designated." In Bush v. Gore, the high court reiterated that
any state legislature "may,
if it so chooses, select the electors itself."
Obviously, none of us wants to abolish popular elections,
but why would the Constitution even grant state legislatures such power? Well,
the framers understood that, unlike Congress, these are the bodies that are
closest and most accountable to the people, and unlike judges or executives
(state or federal), they are numerous in a deliberative body and won't wield unilateral
authority without some degree of consensus.
By overriding the legislatures in how to properly conduct
the popular elections that choose these presidential electors, the courts and
governors have disenfranchised their voters. A Michigan court extended Election Day for two weeks. A Pennsylvania court,
along with the Democrat secretary of state, essentially nullified signature verification for
mail-in ballots.
Thus, if there is ample evidence of voter fraud that
would be sufficient to alter the will of the people through this popular
election, it is incumbent upon the state legislatures in those states to
reclaim their authority over the Electoral College and rectify the fraud that
has upended our election process.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-state-legislatures-rectify-election-fraud
