Jan 212021
 
President Donald Trump

by Elizabeth Morris

I will continue to refer to our elected Commander-in-Chief as President Donald J. Trump. I will refer to the person currently sitting in the office as Joe Biden, and his running mate as Kamala Harris – with no titles – because neither currently holds elected office.

That is, obviously, a very mild form of Civil Disobedience. But under the current vindictive and threatening environment – it is the safest act I can perform. But even a mild stand such as this, in the current environment, can bring a person trouble – as any suggestion the election was stolen is grounds for punishment.

That said, recognizing that Donald J. Trump is our elected President also means I will not obey executive orders signed by Joe Biden, who has no elected authority to institute executive orders. The executive orders signed by our elected president Donald Trump continue to be the legal authority.

Constitutionally, Congress had no choice but to certify the state’s election results. Nevertheless, that does not make Joe Biden the elected president. If President Trump in fact received the votes necessary to win the individual states – then he is, in fact, the elected president. Based on the sworn, eye-witness testimony of hundreds of poll workers and poll watchers from November 3rd on – testimony the main stream media purposefully ignored and did not allow the general public to see – there is more than enough evidence that “irregularities,” if not outright fraud, took place.

This is the evidence that several states and federal legislators were acting upon when they protested the election. These legislators are now being vilified for acting upon the evidence they were shown. They are being punished for believing and standing up for their constituents – some of whom showed documented evidence.

NO, Joe Biden – there can be no unity with this. Not ever.

Unfortunately, the state legislatures did NOT understand the Constitutional power and authority they had over the electoral votes. Neither did President Trump’s legal team fully understand. The courts were not the venue for the battle. The state legislatures were. In fact – the state legislatures have full constitutional authority – NOT the governors. The state legislatures did NOT have to have permission from the governor to hold a special session with regard to electoral votes.

Please read the opinion of constitutional authority and Senior Advisor to the Convention of States, Rob Natelson1, on the issue:

Natelson also wrote this article:

AND – here is another article Natelson wrote on the subject, in question and answer format:

Q&A for state legislators and citizens: The Constitution and how to settle the election

By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 18, 2020|Categories: Constitution, Elections, Electoral College

Irregularities in the presidential election returns of six states have sparked the question “What next?” The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Should their state legislatures intervene? Confusing the issue are media and other claims that are dead wrong.

This column corrects the mistakes and clarifies duties and options.

Why the mistakes? Many in the media are strongly motivated to secure the election of Joe Biden—or, more accurately, the defeat of Donald Trump. They have been uncurious about alleged election irregularities or how the Constitution and federal law address presidential election deadlocks.

Even most experts are unfamiliar with this subject. On average, law school constitutional law courses spend 2/3 of their time on two percent of the Constitution (the 1st Amendment and two sections of the 14th) and largely ignore the presidential election process. Most law professors are unaware of the Constitution’s presidential election rules or the history behind them.

Now some questions and answers:

Q.Why are state legislatures involved?

A. You don’t learn this in school, but the Founders put the state legislatures near the heart of the political system. So much so that during the public debates over ratification of the Constitution, one of the most popular pro-Constitution writers (Tench Coxe) affirmed (pdf) that once the Constitution was ratified, ultimate sovereignty would lodge in a combination of state legislatures and state conventions.

Q. How is that relevant to presidential elections?

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to determine how electors are appointed. This power was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in Chiafolo v. Washington (pdf). The Court held that state legislatures not only control choice of electors but can even direct them how to vote.

Q. Are there roles for Congress in the presidential election system?

A. Yes. One is that the Constitution’s Same Day Clause or Presidential Vote Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 4) authorizes Congress to select a uniform national day for voting by presidential electors and a (necessarily uniform) national time for voting for president electors. Congress has responded with legislation whose current version was enacted in 1948: December 14 for voting by electors (3 U.S. Code §7) and November 3 for voting for electors (id., §1).

Q. But this year many people voted by mail and the balloting continued over weeks . . .

A. Yes, and that was a violation of both the Same Day Clause and federal law. Some of the election irregularities were those the Same Day Clause was adopted to prevent.

Q. So, where does the state legislature come in?

A. Federal law, 3 U.S.C., § 2, recognizes state legislatures’ continuing power to choose electors after November 3 if the election on that date fails. It reads:

“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.”

Q. Is that relevant to all states this year?

A. No—only to the six states with contested elections. Investigations over the next few weeks may show that preliminary results in some of these states are accurate. Then the law will apply only to states (if any) where the results remain helplessly muddled.

Q. How do lawmakers learn if claims of irregularities are true?

A. They should see how the lawsuits challenging the election unfold in their states over the next few days and weeks. I also recommend that legislative committees hold hearings of their own.

Q. To overturn an election, do you have to show fraud?

A. No. Any irregularities altering the results may be sufficient. These include (1) election officials treating different votes in different ways, in violation of the 14th amendment (Bush v. Gore, pdf), (2) changing election procedures during or after the election—or before the election in a way that confuses voters, and (3) even innocent mistakes, including software or machine errors.

Q. I read an article saying that fraud is sufficient to upend an election, and that there is no need to show it changed the result. Is this correct?

A. No. A court is unlikely to set an election aside if the results would have been the same anyway.

Q. If a state legislature finds that the results are hopelessly muddled, what should it do?

A. The principal options are (1) call a special election limited to presidential electors only or (2) choose the electors itself. Some may gripe about a quick election repeat, but successive elections are common in some other democratic countries.

Q. Is it true that only the governor may call the legislature into special session?

A. It is true in some states. Of course, this is no problem if the governor is cooperative. Some state constitutions allow a petition signed by a certain number of lawmakers to call a special session.

Q. My state’s law says only the people, not the legislature, can choose electors. State law further requires a 60-day notice period before a special election. Doesn’t this prevent our state lawmakers from acting even if federal law would seem to authorize them to do so?

A. No. If the legislature can come into session it may—either with gubernatorial cooperation or by a veto-proof majority—change the laws as necessary and allow the people to vote.

Q. What if the governor is not cooperative and there is no veto-proof majority?

A. Then the legislature may call itself into session and choose the electors itself.

Q. Huh?

A. This is one of those things not taught in law school. Here’s the background:

The Constitution delegates power to federal departments and officials. But it also assigns responsibilities to persons and entities outside the federal government. These persons and entities include state governors, presidential electors, convention delegates, voters, jurors—and state legislatures. The courts refer to the exercise of these responsibilities as “federal functions.” (See my forthcoming article on the subject in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.)

When the Constitution assigns responsibility to the “state legislature,” it may mean either the state’s entire legislative apparatus, including the governor, or the representative assembly standing alone, without the governor.

Q. Go on . . . .

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections. In this case, the delegation is to the entire legislative process including the governor. Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n. (pdf). But when state legislatures act in the constitutional amendment process or elect functionaries themselves, they act alone, without gubernatorial involvement.

Q. For example?

A. Before the 17th amendment, the state legislatures elected U.S. Senators, and the governor had no say in the matter. Choice of presidential electors is almost certainly subject to the same rule. Federal law seems to recognize this when it provides, “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 . . . in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” Surely Congress did not expect the legislature to go through the entire law-making process in a constricted period of time. It contemplated the legislature choosing the electors itself or setting up an expedited process.

Q. Okay, but if the state constitution says only the governor can call a special session, how can the legislature call itself into session?

A. When a state legislature exercises a “federal function,” its power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, and it is not bound by state rules. The judiciary has said this repeatedly. The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Leser v. Garnett (pdf), written by the celebrated justice, Louis Brandeis.

Q. Of the six contested states, all but Nevada have Republican-controlled legislatures. I’ve heard it suggested that they not choose electors at all. That way, neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 electors (a majority of the whole number of 538), forcing a run-off election in the House of Representatives. Although the Democrats will have a slim majority in the new House, the GOP will hold a majority of state delegations. Since presidential voting in the House is by state, it will elect Trump.

A. The suggestion is unwise. First, state lawmakers would, justifiably, take at least as much political heat for simply punting as for calling a new election or choosing the electors.

Second, the 12th amendment says that only if no presidential candidate receives “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” does the election go to the House. If none of the five contested states with Republican legislatures appoints electors, then there will be only 465 “Electors appointed.” If, as is almost certain, Nevada goes for Biden, then that would give him 233 votes—a majority of 465. No House run-off.

If fewer than five Republican legislatures abstain, then Biden will win the remaining states, and with them the Presidency.

Q. So what should state lawmakers do in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

A. Ignore the media gaslighting and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. Monitor the state election challenges closely. If no clear winner appears in, say, two more weeks, then either call a snap election using old-fashioned paper ballots in fixed polling locations or, if the governor does not cooperate, call themselves into session and choose the state’s presidential electors. In the latter case, lawmakers can blame it all on the uncooperative governor. Remember that the process has to be complete before the electors meet on December 14.

This column first appeared in the Epoch Times.

Tags: Election 2020, Elections, Electoral College, state legislature

  1. Rob Natelson: In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals (See: https://i2i.org/author/rob/) He co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). He was a law professor for 25 years and taught constitutional law and related courses. He is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

———————

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004.  Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy.

Ms. Morris graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019.  Her Master Thesis is titled: “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

Paul Ryan Wins VP Debate as Biden Yells, Interrupts, and Bullies

 Comments Off on Paul Ryan Wins VP Debate as Biden Yells, Interrupts, and Bullies
Oct 122012
 

October 12, 2012

Talking heads can say what they want in their attempts to pretend that Joe Biden did well,  looked presidential, or behaved (as one has already said) “passionately” but maturely during the debate between the Vice Presidents tonight, Thursday, October 11th.

The bottom line is that Joe Biden was rude,  condescending, arrogant, and simply over the top in his behavior throughout the entire debate; so much so that his behavior was the primary topic of discussion on all the social networks.  Little can be remembered about what he actually said – but a lot will be remembered about how he behaved.  Over and over during the debate, people commented about how irritating and obnoxious he was.

Here is just a sampling of tweets reflecting the average voter’s thoughts during the debate, beginning with Libya and then moving on.  Tweets equating Biden with the rear of a donkey have been omitted –

_______________________

RT @poliquest: #Biden already sounding stupid. The men that did it were in the pics! Ur pres apologized for US! #VPDebate

RT @LessaT: Oh, but Joe you & the Dem’s mistake cost 3 men’s lives

RT @lonelycon: Ryan comes out swinging, diplomat in Paris has Marine guard but not Benghazi? #VPDebate

RT @Lilleth71: Good job @PaulRyanVP … Not letting Biden weasel out of #BengaziGate

RT @RichardUSA: Biden didn’t answer the first question. Debate is over.

RT @ChuckNellis: Biden’s face is turning red already. Do you think his head might blow up on live TV?

RT @Dataaide: What is Biden talking about? Is this ‘opposite day’ in junior high school? #debate #tcot

RT @TJMcCormack: Same intelligence community that told us WMD, Joe? #debates

RT @funkyconserv: Biden is getting defensive! LOL

RT @DavidLimbaugh: Bull you weren[t told they wanted more security. #VPDebate

RT @Aijadaina: #vpdebate Wow, Ryan is hitting right between the eyes. Unraveling of Obama foreign policy. We should not project weakness …

RT @RightKlik Biden “We weren’t told that they needed more security” *TIP: Stop skipping intelligence briefings #VPDebate #tcot

RT @MelissaTweets: Is anyone buying what Biden is selling? He’s like a used car salesman.

RT @cicecandy: Is this a joke what the he’ll is Biden grinning about

RT @indyrallen Is it just me or is Biden coming off as a jerk? #VPDebate

RT @fuzislippers: Slow Joe needs to stop giggling like a lunatic, it’s off-putting and strange. #VPDebate

RT @torreymspears: Biden has to stop laughing. #VPDebate #tcot #p2

RT @RalstonReports: Ryan’s answer on Iran is strong, focused, tough. Biden: “It’s incredible.”

RT @themick1962: “We should not be apologizing for standing up for our values” Paul Ryan #Amen #VPDebate

RT @fr33dm4us: Slow Joe @VP, left his Respect at the door with his brain! #CSPAN2012

RT @NolteNC: What is Biden doing laughing like this?

RT @nogirlemen: Is English a 2nd language for Biden?? He makes no sense #VPdebate

RT @Mkber5: Wow can clearly see moderator is siding with uncle Joe. #vpdebate

RT @hughhewitt: Iran is a good way away? What? #debate

RT @AlinskyDefeater: They’re a good way away. Thanks for pinning that down Joe. #ocra #tcot

RT @DickMorrisTweet: #debates Biden looks weak on Iran. nobody believes that they are not close to a weapon.

RT @TXCupCake: I’m sickened by Joe Biden… And he doesn’t even have to say anything. It’s the fact that he is chuckling during this top …

RT @ObotNot: Biden: “This is just a bunch of STUFF!” kinda like your brain, Joe… #VPDebate

RT @Shavaun66: #VPdebates did the moderator blow off the fact that the Obama Administration #LIED about the Libyan Embassy attack? #Orga …

RT @jeffemanuel: RT @jstrevino: Bibi Netanyahu was 24 in 1973, when Biden says their friendship formed, leading commando teams into Syria.

RT @djohnsUSA: Someone needs to tell Bibi Obama talks to him all the time because he doesn’t seem to know that. #VPdebate

RT @BrianFaughnan: Biden: all options on the table, but war is worse than an Iranian nuclear weapon.

RT @TerriGreenUSA: “@schmidtkevinall: Is Joe Biden really trying to criticize Romney and Ryan for Gaffes? Pot this is Kettle, do you re …

RT @DavidLimbaugh: So Joe, you are on a hit assignment now to be insulting to Romney and Ryan tonight. You squirrel. #VPDebate

RT @redsteeze: I’m sure glad Joe Biden thinks this is all funny. Chris Stevens isn’t laughing #VPDebate

RT @fitethegoodfite: RT @chrisrbarron: Biden is totally blowing this… unbelievable… 2 disasters in a row for them

RT@Dataaide: Wow. What a blowhard Biden is. Ryan responds beautifully, and then Biden tries to interrupt again, and then laughs like a schoolboy…

RT @TeriChristoph: Biden’s cackling is tailor-made for an SNL skit.

RT @cbierzonski: Point scored on Scranton for Ryan! #debate

RT @StevenErtelt: Not sure how much longer Biden thinks he can interrupt Ryan without looking like a jerk.

RT @SwiftRead: Biden Lied! Tax rate lowered for ALL, allowing US economy to grow & collect more income/sales tax = revenue http://t. …

RT @zanieladie: ZING…Ryan: 1 Biden: 0

RT @southsalem: RT @DLoesch: “I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes words don’t come out the right way.” Ryan #vpdeb …

RT @Shavaun66: Your rambling JOE #VPdebates

RT @Dataaide: Thank you for interrupting Biden’s banter and allowing Ryan to speak some substance! #debate #tcot

RT @EyeOnPolitics: Biden asking Ryan to “show me a policy”… I have a feeling Ryan is about to show him several. #VPdebate #debates

RT @Jarjarbug: SHOW ME A #Budget Joe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #VPDebate

RT @Miz_Eisenhower: Biden is totally obnoxious.

RT @kerpen: Detroit DID go bankrupt after Bush and Obama flushed bailout money in a futile attempt to avoid bankruptcy. http://t.co/Xr914UM5

RT @readmylipstick: Every time Biden laughs that nasty smirky laugh I like him a little less… #vpdebates

RT @sdo1: Bingo. React to the guy. RT @LegInsurrection: Ryan needs to stop Biden from talking over him

RT @RedAlert: Ryan asks if it was a good idea to borrow money from China, and Biden giggles.

RT  @Dataaide:”Every VP dabate I hear this stuff about panels” – wasn’t a funny statement, Biden. It was dumb. #debate #tcot

RT @BiasedGirl Sounds like it. “@JessaNaomi: Did Biden just say that 4% of the green jobs didn’t go under? #VPdebate” #debate #tcot

RT @cgpb: Biden’s gaffes, inventions & hyperboles will go on tonight in d world’s book of debating records!

RT @brandootr: I used to kinda like Joe, but he is showing his inner a–hole tonight #vpdebate

RT @sanuzis: Biden is being just OBNOXIOUS as hell continuously interrupting Ryan –

RT @FoxNewsInsider: Chris Wallace: Never seen a candidate as ‘openly disrespectful of the other as [Joe] Biden was to Paul Ryan’ http:// …

______________________________

Just Sayin.  The talking heads can spin it if they want, but this is what people actually thought during the debate.

Of course it is the issues that matter most – but it was hard to hear the actual discussion with all VP Biden’s interruptions. Which was perhaps the purpose.

Why does it matter how he acted, other than the fact that in doing so, he prevented us from fully hearing Ryan’s answers?  The man who wins this seat is just one heart beat away from the presidency. I pray it isn’t Biden.