Here is a letter I wrote to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen yesterday:
Senator Allen:
I heard you today in the Arizona hearings regarding election integrity ask about the constitutional ability o... View MoreHere is a letter I wrote to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen yesterday:
Senator Allen:
I heard you today in the Arizona hearings regarding election integrity ask about the constitutional ability of the Arizona legislature to convene itself for the purpose of reviewing whether the presidential election has been conducted in a manner as you have directed and to remedy the untrustworthy implementation of the count by directly selecting a slate of electors.
I am convinced by my study of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent that you do indeed, as a state legislator, have the plenary power under Article II of the United States Constitution to work with your fellow legislators and call the legislature into session for such a purpose, even if the Arizona Constitution and statutes dictate that normally the legislature does not. As I am from Texas and a member of only the Texas Bar, I am unfamiliar with the Arizona Constitution and statutes on the calling of special sessions, but I think that the authorities I will quote and the articles I link to below will demonstrate that Article II trumps (no pun intended) the Arizona legal regime for other circumstances.
First, here are quotes from Bush v Gore and McPherson v. Blacker that Mayor Guiliani referenced, today:
?The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See [McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1,] 35 (1892)? ?[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?? Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).
The McPherson case quoted former Justice Joseph Story from his Commentaries on the Constitution where he said that ?direct choice by the legislature? of electors ?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.? (emphasis added). Clearly the judiciary has never thought it had the power to tell state legislatures how to pick its electors.
Chief Justice Fuller hammered the point home in McPherson: ?The power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive.? And ?The question before us is not one of policy, but of power.?
Daniel Horowitz in this article ( https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-yes-state-legislatures-do-indeed-have-the-final-say-over-this-election ) (in a follow up to his original article) says answers your question this way:
?In some states, the legislature cannot convene a special session outside the regular session (typically in January) without the consent of the governor. Lawmakers from these states are concerned that they might not be able to convene without the green light from a Democrat governor who clearly has no interest in further investigating election fraud.
Other legislators have raised questions about whether they can reclaim their constitutional power to select the electors after they have already delegated the authority to the political parties based on the winner of the popular election.
The answer to both of these concerns lies in federal law. 3 U.S.C. ?2 states clearly:
"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."
Thus, even if we accept the argument that legislators cannot abolish popular elections and return to the original practice without passing a new statute (which would require the signature of the governor), that is not what they would be doing here. There has already been a popular election. And assuming the results remain contested and unclear, federal law dictates they alone are responsible for resolving it.
Given the existing plenary power to select electors, plus the power of Congress to set the time for voting on them (and Congress gave the authority to the legislators to control that process), it's hard to see how any other state law would supersede such power in this case ? at least as it relates to the presidential election.?
I have written two articles on the general topic of the role of the state legislatures in elector selection as well. My first was entitled, ?State Legislatures? Exclusive Power to Choose Electors.? My second, published earlier today, is entitled, ?Presidential Endgame Being Set Now.?
Thank you for being willing to do your constitutional duty to protect rule of law, election integrity, state sovereignty, and liberty. I hope this helps.
Toward liberty,
Tom Glass
Texas Constitutional Enforcement
If the right three of five GOP controlled legislatures do the right thing by stopping certification of elections clearly corrupted by fraud and then directly appoint electors from their state for Trum... View MoreIf the right three of five GOP controlled legislatures do the right thing by stopping certification of elections clearly corrupted by fraud and then directly appoint electors from their state for Trump, Trump will win. But they have to take action by Monday, December 13, or better yet, by Tuesday, December 8.
https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/presidential-endgame-being-set-now
Presidential Endgame Being Set Now
Those who care about rule of law, election integrity, constitutional government, and liberty should be contacting the GOP legislators in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin this we
If you think that our elections should accurately reflect the legitimate votes cast and that theft of elections subverts our republic, you probably are open to consider indicators that something is am... View MoreIf you think that our elections should accurately reflect the legitimate votes cast and that theft of elections subverts our republic, you probably are open to consider indicators that something is amiss with the presidential election this year.
Here is more indicators that we should be concerned. Very concerned.
https://spectator.org/what-we-must-believe-to-believe-biden-won/
What We Must Believe to Believe Biden Won | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
To accept Joe Biden as president, we must believe voters hammered Democrats in other races, yet decided to elect the leader of their party.
See the video by the magnificent Tom Woods called "The Covid Cult" banned by Youtube after over 1.5 million views.
As Tom Woods said, "Not one stitch of anything in that video was false."
https://to... View MoreSee the video by the magnificent Tom Woods called "The Covid Cult" banned by Youtube after over 1.5 million views.
As Tom Woods said, "Not one stitch of anything in that video was false."
https://tomwoods.com/the-covid-cult
The COVID Cult | Tom Woods
My remarks at the recent Ron Paul symposium in Texas:
page=1&callback_module_id=groups&callback_item_id=2939&year=&month=
Load More
