A Constitutional Roadmap for Conquering Election Fraud
By Publius Huldah
The following shows what the State Legislatures and each Branch of the federal government have the authority to do to address the monstrous crime which has been committed against our Country.
1. Article IV, §4, US Constitution
The fundamental Principle which should guide us in dealing with this issue is set forth at Article IV, §4, US Constitution. It reads,
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
The essence of a “Republic” is that sovereign power is exercised by Representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by The People. 1
Election fraud strikes at the heart of our Constitutional Republic. Therefore, Congress, the federal courts and the Executive Branch [i.e., the “United States”] have the duty, imposed by Article IV, §4, to negate the fraud in order to preserve our republican form of government.
As shown below, the States also have authority to remedy the election fraud committed in their State.
2. The Constitutional framework governing federal elections
These are the clauses in the US Constitution everyone should study:
♦ Art. I, §4 is the “times, places, and manner” clause: It means what it says! Federal and State judges, and federal and State executive agencies, have no authority to tinker with election laws made by the State Legislatures or Congress. When they tinker with the laws, their acts are usurpations and must be treated as such [link].
♦ Art. II, §1, clause 2: The President & Vice President are to be elected by Electors appointed, in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct…
♦ Art. II, §1, clause 4: Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors and the Day on which they Vote.
♦ The 12th Amendment sets forth the procedures for how the Electors are to cast their votes for President & then for Vice President. To our detriment, we have ignored those procedures for a long time.
♦ The 20th Amendment, §1, says the terms of President & Vice President end January 20; and the terms of Senators & Representatives end January 3.
♦ And §2 of the 20th Amendment says Congress shall meet on January 3, unless they make a law setting a different date. Congress did make a law which changed that date to January 6.
3. The Statutory framework
At Title 3, US Code, §§ 1-21 [link], Congress implemented the constitutional provisions.
Congress understood there would be fights in the States over the selection of the Electors. So they provided for the fights:
A.
At 3 USC §1, Congress set November 3 as the date for appointing the Electors in the States.
But the next two Sections address what happens when Electors aren’t appointed on November 3.
♦ §2 says the Electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the Legislature of each State may direct.
♦ And §3 says Electors are chosen when any controversy respecting their appointment has been finally determined. “Determining the controversy” is, of course, the purpose of the litigation and the hearings in State Legislatures.
B.
Article II, §1, clause 4, US Constit., gives Congress authority to determine the Date on which the electors vote:
♦ 3 USC §7 sets that date for December 14.
♦ But 3 USC §§12 & 13 provide for what happens when Congress hasn’t received the Electors’ votes by December 23.
So we see that flexibility to deal with fights in the States over the selection of Electors is built into the US Code.
C.
Now we get to the counting of the Electors’ Votes in Congress: 3 USC §15 says Congress is to meet on January 6 to count the votes. The President of the Senate [Mike Pence] presides. He is to call for objections to the votes. The rest of §15 and §§16-18 deal with handling the objections in Congress respecting the Electors’ votes.
So the statutory framework recognizes that selecting the Presidential Electors can get messy; and that there would be fights over the Electors in the States and in Congress. We are working through this process right now.
4. Congress has the power to determine whether the President elect and Vice President elect are qualified for office.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment shows that Congress has the authority to determine whether the President elect and Vice President elect are qualified for office. 2 If either is not a natural born citizen, Congress has the power and the duty to disqualify that person. 3 Accordingly, it was Congress’ duty to inquire into whether Obama was a natural born citizen; and today it is Congress’ duty to inquire into whether Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen.
Congress also has the power – and the duty – to disqualify Biden and Harris on the ground that the fraud bringing about their sham “election” was an attack on the States’ Right, guaranteed by Article IV, §4, to have a republican form of government.
5. Election Fraud is a federal crime
It is the DUTY of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the election fraud. It is disgraceful that they have done nothing.
6. The Duty of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is surely aware of its Duty, imposed by Article IV, §4, US Constitution, to guarantee to the States a republican form of government where Representatives are elected by The People – and not by corrupt politicians who pay for massive organized election fraud and cheating.
While the Supreme Court obviously cannot enforce its own rulings and must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce them; 4 the Supreme Court must issue an Opinion consistent with Article IV, §4, which, when enforced by the Executive Branch of the federal government, solves the present crisis.
7. The State Legislatures should appoint replacement Electors
It is clear that State Legislatures have the power to ignore the fraudulent election and appoint a new set of Presidential Electors. Such is consistent with the Constitution and the statutory scheme laid out in 3 USC §§1-21. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already acknowledged that State Legislatures may do this.
REMEMBER that Article II, §1, clause 2, US Constitution, says Electors are to be appointed “in such Manner as the State Legislatures” may direct.
Originally, Electors were generally chosen by the State Legislatures. In McPherson v. Blacker, decided 1892 [link], the Supreme Court gave the history of how each State Legislature chose their Electors since the first presidential election. It was only later that State Legislatures began to provide for the popular election of the Presidential Electors.
Congress expressly recognizes that State Legislatures may resume at any time the power to select the Electors. Remember that 3 USC §2, says,
“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.”
Additionally, in Bush v. Gore, decided 2000 [link], the Supreme Court said that the State Legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the Electors itself; and even after granting the franchise to the People to select the Electors, State Legislatures can resume the power at any time.
So yes, in States where the election was stolen, the State Legislatures may – and should – reassume their plenary power to select the Electors. America urges the State Legislators to be bold and do what is right.
8. Warning
Republican establishment cowards who refuse to confront and defeat the election fraud don’t seem to understand the consequences of their refusal to man up and fight the fraud. Our Country is right now in the process of being overthrown and taken over by profoundly evil people. You better fight while we still can.
Endnotes:
1 Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison) [link]: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”
2 The qualifications are set forth at Article II, §1, clause 5 and the 12th Amendment, last sentence.
3 Whether or not a President elect or Vice President elect meet the constitutional qualifications for office is a political question for Congress to decide.
4 Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton) [link] “…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [Caps are Hamilton’s; other emphasis added]
What can we do to get a reasonably honest election?
By Publius Huldah
A disaster of monumental proportions is likely to be ahead for our Country if we don’t take emergency action to get at least a reasonably honest election. Not only the President’s seat, but also the entire US House, the Houses in the State Legislatures, one/third of the seats in the US Senate, and a proportional number of seats in the State Senates, are all at stake in the upcoming election.
We are faced with irrefutable proof that the Marxists intend to steal the election. And they will not content themselves with stealing only the President’s seat – they seek to steal every seat on the ballots.
So we need to face up to the problem and take immediate action.
1. What does Congress have constitutional authority to do?
The President and Vice President are supposed to be elected using the procedures set forth in Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment to our US Constitution. But we have ignored those provisions for a great many years; and it’s too late to obey them for the upcoming election of President and Vice President.
But Congress still has constitutional authority to invoke Article II, §1, cl. 4, which invests in Congress the power to determine the time of chusing the Presidential Electors and the Day on which they vote. That date is currently set for November 3, 2020.
Pursuant to Article I, §4, cl. 1, Congress may make laws determining the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding the federal elections to Congress.
Since we know that Trump ballots have been tossed into dumpsters, and election offices have been flooded with fake Biden ballots; the best course of action would be for Congress to make a law which reschedules the November 3 election to a later date; and cancels everything which has been done so far respecting the election (at least since the primaries).
Congress could then exercise its constitutional authority to establish common sense procedures respecting the “Time, Place and Manner” of voting in the upcoming elections. For example, Congress could pass a law providing that:
· Every registered voter who wants to vote must physically appear at his officially designated place of voting and produce proof of identity.
· Election Day should be one day – not weeks and months before & after the date set for the election.
· Absentee voting should be restricted to those who are out of the Country or out of State due to military service, service in the diplomatic corps, missionaries stationed overseas, businessmen stationed overseas, etc.
We used to do it this way.
But the Marxists came in with their hard luck stories about how these requirements were harsh, unfair, discriminatory, and so forth; and so our side [as usual] caved in and went along with the demands which stripped us of the ability to have even reasonably honest elections.
However, because Marxists now control the House, Congress lacks the ability to act as suggested above.
2. What does the US Supreme Court have constitutional authority to do?
Article I, §4, cl. 1 provides that the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting in federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political question” doctrine [LINK], the Judicial Branches of State and federal government have no lawful authority to substitute their views on these issues for those of the Legislative Branches.
Even so, with respect to the upcoming elections, lawless federal and state judges have been usurping power by substituting their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting, for the views of State Legislatures. Some judges are ruling that because of COVID-19, voters shouldn’t be required to go to the polls – everyone must be allowed to vote by mail; and the time for counting ballots must be extended.
Obviously, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to substitute their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for those of the legislative bodies. Instead, the Supreme Court’s Duty is to issue orders and judgments which adhere to what the Constitution says.
So the Supreme Court should overturn the usurpatious orders of state and federal judges who attempted to usurp power over this issue. They should remind The People of our Country that only the State Legislatures and Congress may address these issues – that judges must keep their hands off. The power isn’t given to the Judicial Branches.
But a recent case out of South Carolina indicates that the most we will get from the Supreme Court is an unprincipled “cut the baby in half” compromise.
South Carolina law provides that a witness must sign an absentee ballot for the ballot to be valid. The Marxists (or their dupes) objected to this requirement and sued. Using COVID-19 as the excuse, the federal judge disagreed [!] with the statutory requirement for a witness, and said the State couldn’t enforce it. South Carolina election officials applied to the US Supreme Court for a stay of the lower Court’s order. 1
On October 5, 2020, in Andino v. Middleton [LINK], the Supreme Court stayed the Order, except to the extent that any ballots cast before they granted the Stay and received within two days of their Order may not be rejected.
So the Supreme Court’s Order is nothing for us to celebrate. The Supreme Court is allowing several days’ worth of unlawful ballots to be treated as valid; and thus are rewarding the trial judge’s usurpation of powers [which were granted to the South Carolina Legislature], by allowing these unlawful ballots to be counted.
But our good Justices, Thomas and Alito, and Gorsuch as well, would have granted the Stay in full and disqualified all the unlawful absentee ballots.
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggests that, like the majority, he doesn’t understand that the Judicial Branch has no constitutional authority to alter State election laws re the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections: he pointed out that the actions of the lower Court violated Supreme Court precedent [!] that (1) an unelected federal judge ordinarily shouldn’t make public health decisions which overrule State Legislatures, and (2) federal courts ordinarily shouldn’t alter state election rules in the period close to an election. Yikes!
So while the Supreme Court might “give” us some relief from the massive cheating, it seems unlikely that they will provide a principled defense of our Constitution.
3. What must State Governments do?
State governments may be the only way salvage, at least to some extent, the upcoming election. Since the Judicial Branches of the State and federal governments have no constitutional authority to change the decisions of the Legislative Branches respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections; State Governments should instruct the Election Officials for their State that they must obey & enforce the election laws passed by their State legislature and not the usurpatious orders of judges. Judges have no constitutional authority to change what the State Legislatures do on this issue!
Election officials should also be shown that judges have no power to enforce their orders & judgments – that they depend on the Executive Branches of the federal or State governments to enforce them. We are doomed if Americans remain unable to grasp this simple concept.
Endnote:
1 The better course of action would have been for South Carolina to nullify the lawless opinion of the federal judge by refusing to enforce it. Remember! Federal judges have no army – they can’t enforce their Orders. They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t to enforce them. Who thinks President Trump would send in the National Guard to force South Carolina election officials to allow cheating in the upcoming election? If those officials had been familiar with what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), they would have known this.