My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:

 Comments Off on My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:
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.’

To Save America

 Comments Off on To Save America
Jan 242020
 
To save the America we grew up with and loved

January 24, 2020, by Sharon Ward

America is clearly and deeply divided. The question is, will we ever be united again? Former newsman, Walter Shapiro, wrote in a Dec 27, 2018, Roll Call article, “What America, and not just the Democrats, need most of all in 2020 is a presidential candidate who can begin to heal the nation’s deep wounds.” He opines that a good president will not only give “an inspirational appeal to our better angels as citizens,” but as well have, “that half-forgotten virtue called competence — the ability to understand how government works and to know how to use the levers of power to recover from the wreckage of the Trump years.”

He started out sounding nice but ended with digging the knife again into the wound. Ridiculing again the President chosen and loved by half the nation, Shapiro demonstrates he has no desire to understand half the population. Those of his mind have no idea how – and perhaps no genuine desire to – heal this land.

Several, but not all, of the 2020 presidential contenders have talked about healing the nation.  An August 2019 article reported that former Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak was “running for president to heal this nation’s soul.” A November 8, 2019 headline announced that Senator Cory Booker “wants to heal nation,” and a July 12, 2019 New Yorker headline touted “Andrew Yang’s Robot Apocalypse Can Heal a Divided Nation.”

Dr James J. Zogby, in a November 12, 2019 article, asked, “Will 2020 elections heal or deepen the divide?”  Zogby then claims, “There can be no doubt that, by any measure, Donald Trump has been the most outrageous president in our history…It isn’t just the policies Trump has pursued. It is how he has exacerbated the polarization of our society and coarsened our political discourse.”

What is not fully acknowledged by many on the left is that our society was deeply polarized years before Trump came down the escalator. He is merely supporting and responding to those who elected him – as almost all politicians do.  As far as exacerbation is concerned, half of America believes the far-left – which has falsely alleged that President Trump and his supporters are racist, greedy, fascists – is responsible for almost all of the exacerbation and violence that has occurred.

Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that it is not conservatives who are courting fascism. While many progressives have said they consider Christians to be dislikable, controlling people, they, themselves, embrace strict societal controls designed to prevent Christians from living their faith. This is interesting because four centuries ago in what is now the State of Massachusetts, Puritans, who founded the New England governments, were devoted to Jesus Christ but governed in a very strict, controlling manner.  According to historian Perry Miller, Puritans “disliked individualism” and believed government should not only “interfere and direct and lead as much as it could, in all aspects of life,” but also “discipline and coerce” when necessary.  Liberals in the extremely progressive State of Massachusetts today might not all believe in God, but they, along with other east coast liberals, continue to believe government has a duty to control the masses. Many young liberals, in fact, strongly believe government should prevent free speech, free assembly, and free expressions of Christian religion.  

Democrats seem to underestimate how strongly conservatives feel about this – as well as underestimate how strongly conservatives felt about many of President Obama’s policies.  As long as the Obama administration was enacting policies that liberal America embraced  – they closed their eyes and pretended the rest of America didn’t matter.  President Trump, on the other hand, said they do matter.

Zogby admits that President Trump “speaks directly to” conservatives, but then wrongly claims President Trump “has convinced them that he alone understands them and will fight for them.” President Trump didn’t “convince” conservatives of this.  Liberals have. One only has to listen to a liberal for minutes to hear the condescending and derogatory remarks.  Democrats and their 2020 candidates consistently renounce conservatives as either idiots or racist, sexist, evil white people. If they aren’t doing it overtly, they do it subtly.  Zogby himself frames liberals as good and conservatives as bad, describing Democrats as reaching out to “young voters, ‘minorities,’” and “educated professional women,” while Republicans reach out to “the wealthy, of course, and white, ‘born again,’ non-college educated, and rural voters.”  He applauds Democrats as having “condemned inequality, promoted diversity and tolerance, and proposed a range of social programs designed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” then scorns Republicans – alleging they chant a “mantra” for “smaller government, lower taxes,” and “social issues (from abortion to anti-gay rights) to appeal to their voters.”  So much for healing.

The Democrat’s apparent ‘Alinsky’ assumption is that if they ridicule people enough, those people will change. News Flash. Ridicule is only making conservatives angrier and less likely to ‘submit.’  When Obama made his derisive ‘God and guns’ comment and Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “Deplorable,” conservatives embraced the terms proudly.  Zogby asserts that conservatives have latched onto President Trump as their “last, best hope” and feel attacks on him are a threat to their well-being. This is partially true. President Trump is currently the best, but not last, hope, and attacks on him, while indeed recognized as threats to well-being, will not stop conservatives. Even if successful at unseating the President – the divide will remain, and conservatives will find another brave soul to fight for them. To think otherwise is delusional.

While Zogby advises 2020 contenders to “appeal to their base, while also speaking directly…to the left-behind working class – of all races…recognizing the hurt, acknowledging the frustration, and sharing the anger of the right,” he does not understand that is impossible. His words may appeal to Leftist elites, but conservatives recognize them as inherently and insufferably paternalistic. Sure – share the anger. Then go ahead and do what you were going to do anyway. Democrats, including those who claim to want to heal the country through “unity and civility,” always assume that those they see as inferior will be satisfied with any token they might give.  After years of maligning conservatives, there is no reason to believe the 2020 Democrats will suddenly care now. 

Zogby admits that “Winning and transforming American politics means adopting a ‘both/and’ instead of an ‘either/or’ approach to politics” and “Ignoring or just trying to get more votes than the ‘other side,’ will only perpetuate the divide.” He also concedes that “lame calls for unity and civility fall flat when people are hurting, frustrated, and mad.” However, his advice to unify the nation “around an agenda that speaks to all Americans across the divide” is naïve, at best. Our nation is not split on minor points of policy, easily compromised.  It is split on primary, fundamental beliefs – core to everyone’s identity.  

Liberals think conservatives are deplorable?  Conservatives think liberals are insane.  Attacking God and guns wasn’t bad enough – liberals have gone on to rob Americans not only of who they have been as a society for centuries – but of the very essence of who they are as human beings.   

For example, when a Democrat reads that many Americans will never – ever – be comfortable with or accepting of biological men in women’s restrooms, does their stomach turn or lips curl into a sneer?  If so, accept that outside of a war that unites Americans in defense of their lives, there is no longer an agenda that will speak to both sides.  The left is quick to condemn any man who might have made the slightest perceived offence to a woman – yet is comfortable ignoring the deep perception of privacy and safety many women need in a bathroom – especially those who have been sexually assaulted in the past.

Several issues cannot be compromised. Too many Democrats have said they want to make children who are just days away from birth disposable.  The large number who staunchly embrace this agenda will need a transformative experience with God before America will ever be united – because conservatives will not cease condemning the cold-blooded murder of infants.   

The left has been attempting to subvert everything Americans have known about life and culture.  Democrats demand the right to teach a leftist illusion to the children who have been allowed to live – including that they can be another gender. Children are then confused into believing that not only can they change gender; they can choose from dozens of ‘genders.’  But because nothing is what it seems, they had better not make the mistake of assuming what a person looks like is what that person really is, and heaven forbid they call them by the wrong pronouns – which have multiplied exponentially along with the genders.  Liberals have then shamed and even punished children who, confused by all this, state the obvious.  

Liberals have told children that God isn’t important and probably doesn’t even exist. They told young girls that it is okay to kill their babies if they want. Then they started infusing this far-left agenda into children’s schoolwork, cartoons, movies and toys.  

Claiming that sexually explicit “Pride parades” are family fun and story hour at the library educational, liberals called conservatives uptight and homophobic, and suggested more drugs be legalized so everyone could just get high and relax.  President Obama broke the camel’s back when he mandated schools open up bathrooms, locker rooms, and even motel rooms on field trips so children the left had allowed to survive but strived to confuse could more effectively stress and confuse other children. In just ten years, Obama had forced so many changes to our society that many citizens over the age of 40 felt they had lost their own culture. This was no longer “your parent’s America.”  Many who were losing their children to the leftist distortions could see this wasn’t going to stop. It was only going to keep getting worse.

All of that – along with the economically destructive policies of the Obama administration – made people grieve for the America they grew up in.  This is why the phrase, “Make America Great Again,” spoke to so many.

Unfortunately, Democrats successfully convinced young people that the phrase was all about ‘race.’

It was not about ‘race.’  It also had less to do with the economy than many out-of-touch elites supposed.  While everyone wants better cash-flow and those who recognize the President’s economic achievements are very grateful for it, the provoked anger during the Obama administration wasn’t about jobs as much as it is about social issues.

The liberals had gone after the children.

Hands off our children. 

This is not a village. You do not get to raise our child.

Conservatives have been pushed too far. As men, women, mothers, fathers and grandparents, they will not allow the far left to destroy their families any longer.

Liberals are enraged at President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies – yet still don’t get that half of America loves President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies.  They want to make it about anything but that.

There can never be a uniting of these two, diametrically opposed worldviews. The divide is irreconcilable. Accept it.  No President can heal this nation. Leftists have been clear they intend to extend the craziness further, and conservative have been clear they intend to stop them. Both have been increasingly disgusted by the policies of each other’s successive administrations over the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, don’t worry.  It does not need to come to blows and one side does not need to push the other out of the country. We do not need to have a civil war.  While we cannot heal the divide, there is a way for this nation to survive.

We must genuinely honor the 10th amendment – just as the Founding Father’s originally envisioned.  Unlike genders, we really do have many different states to choose from – 51 if Northern California has its way.  

The original colonies were, by their measure, jarringly distinct from each other.  Each had its own manner of government and was highly protective of its territory. They had separate histories, specific religions, distinguishable cultures and unique commerce issues. They were often in competition or conflict with one another. Nevertheless, while they wanted to retain their individuality, they desired to form a collective central government for purposes of defense, oversea commerce, national infrastructure, and a small number of other issues best handled in unity. Our nation was created, constitution written – and over the years, civil rights added – under the premise that each state be able to maintain its own policies.

Today, if a state decides to be socialist, so be it – with the understanding that the federal government has no power and the other States are under no obligation to bail it out when it fails.  The federal government must finally limit itself to those powers vested by the Constitution and perform only those tasks it was created for. Each State must be free to determine its own internal policies as allowed under the federal constitution – including how long a new resident must wait before receiving state benefits.  The president must return to a more limited role as Chief executive.  It is only in this way – the way originally established by our founding fathers – that this nation can survive under two disparate world views.