GateAgent007

Constitution doesn't change the way votes are counted in any significant way. It doesn't define how electors are assigned the state level. Does hurt being this dumb? I'd hate for you to be my lawyer.

This is the problem with you. You latch onto to little nuggets and you try to twist meaning into them. But in reality, they don't mean anything.

So if we're so far off the map on this one, we might call all this 'extra-constitutional.' What's another word for that? UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Wouldn't you agree?

NE_Pilot

You really should re-read Article II Section I.

Your desperation is growing.

GateAgent007

But the vote is certified. By the Governor. The state legislature does not have the authority to undo that.

And please quit with the whole 'I don't have a stake' BS. You clearly have a position.

GateAgent007

Desperation? Hardly. Trump is 1-30 in the courts, which why he's trying another Hail Mary to a branch of government that has zero jurisdiction in these matters.

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy that you said you wouldn't back Trump if he lost in the courts. And yet here you are.

Do you feel like a hypocrite?

Seneca Pilot

No, I don't i am just fascinated by the complexity of our system and the fervor on both sides.

You missed the important piece. The governor can't certify an election if there is proven fraud. Legislature then chooses the electors. The proven fraud, as you have pointed out is the hard part, but they are trying.


Edit: Also the strategy in some states is to get ballots tossed for various reasons that would throw the state back to Trump. I guess it will be up to each individual as to how they view the legitimacy of that process.

Seneca Pilot

Here is an article by an attorney explaining the process far better than I can. I just fly planes.

THE LAW

While the United States Supreme Court – in an 8-0 decision (See Chiafolo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___, decided July 6, 2020) – reaffirmed a longstanding judicially recognized principle, that Article 2;§1 of the Constitution grants plenary authority to the Legislatures of each State to determine the manner of appointing presidential electors, the time by which electors must be appointed is controlled by the federal Congress, which has enacted a statute setting the exact day the electors for President and Vice President shall be appointed.

The United States Constitution, also in Article 1;§2, states that “Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes…” Two separate events are mentioned; 1) the time of choosing electors; 2) the Day the Electors vote. In this context, “chusing” means appointing.

Congress has exercised this authority by enacting 3 United States Code §1-18:
§ 1. Time of appointing electors
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
The electors “shall be appointed, in each state” on a very specific day. This special day is known throughout the land as Election Day. The statutory language is facially, and analytically, unambiguous. The electors shall be appointed on Election Day. “Shall be appointed” is a command to the States.

The exact day prescribed by this law upon which the electors shall be appointed is also unambiguous. Now, I ask you, were any electors appointed on November 3rd in any of the aforementioned states? The answer is unequivocally negatory. No electors were appointed at the time prescribed by law.

Did Congress provide a means by which electors could be appointed if the states failed to appoint them on the day prescribed by law? Yes:
§ 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
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 manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
3 USC §1 requires the State to appoint the electors on Election Day, while 3 USC §2 provides an extension of time to the State should it fail to appoint the electors before expiration of Election Day, which date is prescribed by law, this year falling on November 3rd. Whereas, 3 USC §7 prescribes the day the electors shall “give their votes” in December.

3 USC §1 and §2 work in tandem to create a safety net protecting against electoral mischief. The early legislators of this nation were all too familiar with the temptations of governing power. That is a protection of §1, which sets a uniform day, “in each State”, when electors shall be appointed. If a State has enacted procedures controlling the popular vote for presidential electors, that State has until midnight on Election Day to appoint its electors.

Of course, Congress recognized that not every delay would be intentional. Innocent delays occur…sometimes. And this is where §2 comes in. Congress entrusted the State Legislatures exclusively to determine the means by which the electors shall be chosen in the event said Legislatures have held an election – and that election resulted in a failure of the State to appoint the electors before midnight on Election Day. This is exactly what happened in all of the aforesaid States on November 3rd, 2020.

The statute contemplates a previous election process in the States, whether by statute, State Constitution, Election Board, Secretary of State, and so on. All of those actors, if they were given authority to conduct an election, and to count votes thereafter, for however long it might take, derive authority to do so exclusively from their State legislatures. Therefore, 3 USC §2 recognizes the efforts which would be made to hold an election, but, regardless, Congress unambiguously chose to set the time for appointing the electors by the States to expire at midnight on Election Day.

However, §2 also gives the State Legislatures an extension of time to appoint the electors, and it reiterates the plenary authority granted by the Constitution for the Legislature to redetermine a new manner of appointing electors, after the initial attempt failed to meet the midnight deadline. If the State Legislature witnessed fraudulent conduct, or persistent irregularities by the Election Board, Secretary of State, Governor, or the State Courts, before, during, or after the election, and the State has failed to appoint the electors by midnight of Election Day, §2 reiterates the State Legislature’s authority to thereafter unilaterally discard the whole sordid mess and choose a fresh manner of appointing the electors. And this discretion is plenary under the statute, just as it is under the Constitution.

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed again, the longstanding fundamental power of the State Legislatures to unilaterally take back the right to vote in any State election, even after the right has been exercised, so long as the Legislature’s action is applied equally throughout the state, so as not to violate equal protection:

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ “) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Congress., 1st Sets., 9 (1874)).” (Emphasis added.)

This Supreme Court precedent is paramount; the State Legislature can take back the power to vote at any time, before, during, or after an election. And, as long as the State Legislatures cancel the votes of all voters, and not just some voters, it will be impossible for any voter to claim an equal protection violation.

The Constitution gives the federal Congress the authority to choose the time by which electors shall be appointed, while it gives the State legislatures absolute discretion over the manner in which the electors shall be appointed. If the State does not appoint the electors within the time prescribed by federal law, then the State would be usurping Congressional authority if it tried to appoint the electors anytime thereafter. Since the Constitution at Article 1;§2, mandates that “Each State Shall appoint” the electors, while it also grants exclusive authority to the Congress to set the time for choosing the electors, without 3 USC §2, there could be a Constitutional crisis.

Therefore, Congress, in its wisdom, statutorily extended the time for choosing electors to the State, while also reiterating the exclusive Constitutional authority of its Legislature to determine the manner in which the electors shall be appointed. This Congressional extension of time to the State contemplates that the State Legislature will determine whether the previous election was fair, and will be sufficient, in the end, to appoint the electors. Or, if the State Legislature is unhappy with the conduct witnessed throughout the previous election process, it may unilaterally appoint the electors itself, or it may order a new election, with or without new election rules, or it may choose another way to choose the electors.

Written & Researched by Ren Jander, J.D.

All Bizniz

The twisting in the wind to get POTUS over the line is pathetic.

As was mentioned, first it was "Let him have his day in court", to satisfy him and his base. Despite being asked for proof of fraud, none is forthcoming. Now that they've lost in literally all their cases, the courts are being criticized for being partisan.

No matter how much the goal post is moved, POTUS will not prevail. And he knows that. He is just being spiteful and revengeful. He thinks he's soothing his bruised ego at the cost of the Democrats, but it's the American people, and our shining example of democracy that is being trampled.

He's been Teflon Don, but I predict he will pay for this behavior down the road.

NE_Pilot

Not at all. Your failure to understand the Constitution is neither my hypocrisy nor an attempt to steal the election.

You are like the people who cry “but the popular vote” as if that is meaningful in our elections. It is a failure to understand the Constitution.

You may feel that it should not be allowed to happen that way, but your feelings do not invalidate the Constitution nor change the constitutionality of the process.

NE_Pilot

Whats funny is the constant 30-1 or whatever the number is. It’s as if appeals do not exist. Cases don’t get to the Supreme Court because the cases were won earlier, they get there through appeals (there are other ways as well).

So when someone touts 30-1 or that “they lost in all their cases”, what that person is really doing is admitting that they do not understand the judicial process.

Seneca Pilot

Purely hypothetical:

What happens if you are wrong and they can prove massive fraud?

Do you accept that if proven with data and court decisions?