Arizona state representatives issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,023
Reaction score
13,235
Points
2,210

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
11,951
Reaction score
5,340
Points
400
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”
Except the SCOTUS can't rule against the constitution and it states that state legislatures CAN determine the electors for an election.

Specifically:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution leaves decisions about how electors will be chosen to state legislatures: "Each 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."

The court has declared that states have the right to take back the choice of electors from the people.


Postelection changes of the kind Trump is apparently contemplating would cause confusion around two federal laws that directly contradict each other.

One law requires electors to be appointed on Election Day itself. But all states abide by another law, the Electoral Count Act, passed in 1887, which gives states up to 41 days after Election Day to designate their slate of electors. The conflict between these laws provides fertile ground for litigation.


 
Last edited:

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,726
Reaction score
2,438
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
You Republicans need to make up your minds! Looking back at the comment made by our Arizona Attorney General.....

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law

Monday, July 6, 2020
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today, upholding the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the state's popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots. The case involved combined legal challenges from Colorado and Washington where both states removed or sanctioned rogue "faithless" electors who defied the will of the state's voters by voting for another candidate during the 2016 presidential election.

"Today's ruling is about respecting the will of the voters," said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. "Our elections must never be thrust into chaos by rogue actors failing to carry out their responsibilities. Respecting the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the will of the voters is a big victory for Arizona and our country."

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law | Arizona Attorney General (azag.gov)

FRAUDSTERS Must Make up their minds , December 8th, 2020 is around the corner and WE THE PEOPLE ---80, 000, 000 of us are pissed off and skeptical


592 U.S.__(2020)


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.


v.


WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE, ET AL.


No. 20A66


United States Supreme Court


October 26, 2020




"For important reasons, most States, including Wisconsin, require absentee ballots to be received by election day, not just mailed by election day. Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. Moreover, particularly in a Presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner. See 3 U.S.C. §5. The States are aware of the risks described by Professor Pildes: "[L] ate-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result. If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode." Pildes, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, U. Chi. L. Rev. Online (June 26, 2020) (online source archived at www.supremecourt.gov). The "longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen." Ibid."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


We are not conceding , we are not going to roll over and play dead



Govern yourselves accordingly


.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,023
Reaction score
13,235
Points
2,210
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”
Except the SCOTUS can't rule against the constitution and it states that state legislatures CAN determine the electors for an election.

Specifically:

And Arizona law states they have to send electors and that the electors must cast their respective votes for the candidate who won the popular vote in Arizona.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,023
Reaction score
13,235
Points
2,210
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
It's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to withhold those votes...

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956, and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.
B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.

And it's against Arizona state law § 16-212 to not cast an electoral college vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state...

C. A presidential elector who knowingly refuses to cast that elector's electoral college vote as prescribed in subsection B of this section is no longer eligible to hold the office of presidential elector and that office is deemed and declared vacant by operation of law.  The chairperson of the state committee of the political party represented by that elector shall appoint a person who is otherwise qualified to be a presidential elector.  The replacement presidential elector shall cast the elector's electoral college vote as prescribed by this section.  Notwithstanding § 16-344 and any other statute, the nomination paper and affidavit of qualification of the replacement presidential elector may be completed and filed with the secretary of state as soon as is practicable after the presidential elector's appointment.

So all you have is a Republican calling for break the law to help Impeached Trump win the election he lost in a landslide.
Aww, poor, deranged Doc519. He marked this post as he disagrees with it -- but he can't say why.

:itsok:
 

deanrd

Gold Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
3,615
Points
290
did you see the report of this on the news? It was hilarious. The governor of Arizona said that Trump and Pence called him so much that whenever they call he put the hail chief ringtone so he would know who it was.
So he was sitting there signing off on the ballots and while he was in the middle of it his phone started ringing playing hail to the chief so he took out his phone he looked at it and he set it facedown on the table after he hit the quiet button.

and you knew it was either Trump or Pence
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,023
Reaction score
13,235
Points
2,210
This election will separate the men from the boys. Those who are not willing to stand for their country and those who are.
Well, clearly the Trumpists are in the “not” category.
Why do they like rigged elections?


Why are Dimbocraps trying to prevent the validation and verification of our election process?

What are they afraid of letting out to full public view?
Don't know that they are as states are canvassing and certifying their election results on schedule.

But did you ask why Trump was calling for states to stop counting before they finished counting all the votes.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,612
Points
2,220
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.

Arizona state representative Mark Finchem (district 11) on Monday issued a call to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes for Joe Biden because “he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.”
President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign senior legal advisor Jenna Ellis appeared before Arizona state lawmakers in a public hearing on Monday.
The hearing was chaired by Representative Mark Finchem with a number of House and Senate members on the hearing panel.
Trump’s legal team brought out many credible witnesses again on Monday who testified on the Dominion voting machines and other irregularities that point to outright Democrat voter fraud.
TRENDING: Crowd Erupts in Cheers as Giuliani Tells AZ State Lawmakers: "Your Political Career is Worth Losing if You Can Save the Right to Vote in America" (VIDEO)
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai presented very powerful data to Arizona lawmakers that completely obliterated the Biden victory narrative.
In the middle of the hearing on Monday, Arizona’s crooked Secretary of State certified the false election results.
Wow, I'm surprised after his theories and claims seemingly fell apart here without too much effort that this Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai would still be out there peddling his analysis! I bet flacaltenn would be interested to read the article. I wonder if his formulas have changed?
Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai ?

Can you supply a link to this supposed rebutal?
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,590
Reaction score
16,612
Points
2,220
You Republicans need to make up your minds! Looking back at the comment made by our Arizona Attorney General.....

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law

Monday, July 6, 2020
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today, upholding the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the state's popular vote when casting their Electoral College ballots. The case involved combined legal challenges from Colorado and Washington where both states removed or sanctioned rogue "faithless" electors who defied the will of the state's voters by voting for another candidate during the 2016 presidential election.

"Today's ruling is about respecting the will of the voters," said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. "Our elections must never be thrust into chaos by rogue actors failing to carry out their responsibilities. Respecting the authority of states to bind presidential electors to the will of the voters is a big victory for Arizona and our country."

AG Brnovich Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Faithless Elector Law | Arizona Attorney General (azag.gov)
Having the State Legislature dismiss the election results as irretrievably corrupted and void is not the same thing as an EC delegate voting for someone other than who they have been instructed and pledged to vote for.

:rolleyes:
 

jknowgood

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
37,304
Reaction score
8,890
Points
1,330
Location
South carolina

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,023
Reaction score
13,235
Points
2,210
Momentum seems to be building, but Establishment RINO Cucks will probably just ignore it.
The only thing building is the voices of childish morons kicking and screaming because they didn't get their way
Yeah, we remember.
View attachment 423736
LOL

Looks like Impeached Trump in the lower left.
I'm sure that's just you. You loons are crazy.
Nope, I'm not an old, fat, bleached blonde with a spray tan. That guy in the bottom left looks just like Impeached Trump.

 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
120,693
Reaction score
21,010
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
As the counting of votes continues, an anti-democratic suggestion has taken hold among supporters of President Trump that Republican state legislatures could prevent a Biden presidency by directly appointing Trump-supporting electors to the Electoral College, rather than by sending a delegation of electors in line with their states’ popular votes. “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,” tweeted conservative radio host Mark Levin on Nov. 5. Soon after, Donald Trump, Jr., retweeted Levin. Later that night, Sen. Lindsey Graham joined the bandwagon. The idea is not entirely new: In September, Barton Gellman in The Atlantic reported that some state legislators were already considering this gambit—though Pennsylvania Republicans soon rejected the notion.

There are a host of clear legal problems with this suggestion, including that electors are required to be selected on Election Day, not later (absent circumstances not present here), and that due process requires a state to give effect to the fundamental right to vote for president. What’s more, such a move would justifiably be seen by much of the public as a coup. It is a terrible idea.

But even more fundamentally, the Supreme Court has unanimously undercut the core premise to this argument for legislative superpower. And we should know. We argued the opposite before the court this year, in the context of presidential electors, rather than state legislatures, going rogue—and we lost.


Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”
Except the SCOTUS can't rule against the constitution and it states that state legislatures CAN determine the electors for an election.

Specifically:

Article II of the U.S. Constitution leaves decisions about how electors will be chosen to state legislatures: "Each 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."

The court has declared that states have the right to take back the choice of electors from the people.
Bullshit. That's not what that means at all. It means just what it says, that the method of choosing said Electors is up to the states. And the states have already codified how they do it. A legislature thereof, if it wants to do it differently, would have had to do so before the election. You can't change the rules after the game has already been played. Duh?

If it were to mean what this Rumpian fantasy porn imagines, it would have to say "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, subject to later Caprice if they decide they don't like the Results". In other words "such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" has already been directed. You can redirect a hyperlink but you can't redirect a LAW.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
726
Points
140
Y A W N. How many empty threats do I have to sit through?
Do you think it's an empty threat because they won't do it or because they can't do it legally?

They most certainly can do it within the letter of the law
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top