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 12^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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 20^th 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 12^th 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]

Impeachment: All you need to know (and you do need to know it).

By Publius Huldah

1. It is NOT necessary that the President, other officers in the executive branch, or federal judges commit a crime before they may be impeached & removed from office.

Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para) & Federalist  No. 77 (last para) show that the President may be impeached & removed for encroachments, i.e., usurpations of power.

Federal judges may also be impeached & removed for usurpations of power (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

Throughout The Federalist Papers, it is stated that impeachment is for “political offenses”.

2. The House has the SOLE power of impeachment (Art. I, Sec. 2, last clause).  The Senate has the SOLE power to try all impeachments (Art. I, Sec. 3, next to last clause).  The decision to convict is not reviewable by any other body – and common sense tells us what that means!  The House may impeach, and the Senate may convict, for any reason whatsoever; and their decision cannot be overturned.

3. The meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” at Art. II, Sec. 4, is far broader than one might at first glance think.  Somewhere I saw a scholarly paper showing that the “high” refers to the status of the official – it does not refer to the severity of the offense.

Now, note well!  “Misdemeanor” has a broader meaning than “a lesser category of criminal offense”.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows the primary meaning is:  “Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”

This shows that a President, Vice-president, and all civil Officers and Judges of the United States may be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office for “mismanagement”.

4. Errant members of Congress are never impeached – they are expelled by their respective Houses (Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2).

5. Military personnel are never impeached – they are court-martialed (see UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice), and may be kicked out of the military as part of their punishment.  They also may be administratively discharged.

6. It is not feasible to criminally prosecute, under federal law, a sitting President: his prosecutors, the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys, all serve at the President’s pleasure.  He can fire anyone who dares to criminally prosecute him.  That is why sitting Presidents who have committed federal crimes must first be removed from office via impeachment, then be criminally prosecuted.  (Federalist No. 69, 4^th para).

But do not forget: A President may – and should – be impeached & removed for usurpations of power, mismanagement, incompetence, or for any other reason deemed sufficient by Congress.

7.  The lawful methods of getting rid of a sitting President [whether eligible or not to hold the office], in addition to impeachment, are set forth in the 25^th Amendment: Natural death, resignation, or inability to do the job.

8.  The 22^nd Amendment permits Congress to make laws providing for succession where a President elect has not qualified.

Do not spin your wheels in fruitless insistence that a person (who may still be an Indonesian national) who occupies the office of President can’t be impeached because he is ineligible to hold that office.  The FACT is that he holds the office.  Impeachment is a lawful & constitutional method to rid ourselves of occupants of that office and of this particular blight. PH

August 8, 2013

PS added Dec 1, 2014:  Dr. Alan Keyes is great!

 

Postscript added August 25, 2018:  The West Virginia House has impeached their entire Supreme Court:  https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/14/west-virginias-entire-supreme-court-just

Let’s see more of that.  Rein in corrupt and usurpatious judges by impeaching them and removing them from the Bench.  It’s so nice to see some “men” doing what’s right.  congratulations, House!

 Update on December 21, 2019:

Some people are asserting that members of Congress are subject to impeachment. 

Let’s think that through:

1. Article II, §4, US Constitution provides:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

“[C]ivil Officers” refers to appointed officers in the Executive Branch and in the Judicial Branch. The first paragraph of Federalist No. 76 says:

‘THE President is “to NOMINATE, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution…’

THAT is how the President, Vice President and errant officers and judges in the Executive and Judicial Branches are removed from office.

2. How are errant members of Congress removed from Office?

They are “expelled” by their respective Houses.  See Article I, §5, cl. 2.

Now, THINK, People!

If one of the Houses wants to get rid of a Member, why on Earth would they go thru impeachment and trial [which would require the agreement of both Houses to get rid of the Member], when each House can do it on its own by simply expelling the Member?

Say the Senate wants to get rid of a Member who has done some horrible deed. Who can assert with a straight face that the Senate can’t get rid of the errant Member unless the House first impeaches the Senator?  What if the House refuses to impeach? The Senate would be stuck.

And just think what power this would give the House over the Senate!  US Senators who thwarted the plans of loons in the House would be subject to impeachment!  Yet the Senate would not have the corresponding power over the House.

THAT’S WHY our Framers, who were a whole lot wiser than we of today, provided that each House has the power to EXPEL a member.

    Other people are asserting that Impeachment is a “Bill of Attainder” 

Yes, some self-appointed “constitutional expert” over at “Conservative Tree House” is making this claim. 

So let’s think that through:

Impeachment and Bills of Attainder are very different: They both take place in a Legislative Body, but one is a criminal proceeding [bill of attainder] – the other is simply to remove a person from office [impeachment & trial].

A bill of attainder is a legislative FINDING of guilt in a criminal matter with no trial. They have been abolished in THIS Country. But they had them in England. The Parliament would pass a bill saying so & so is guilty of Treason – off with his head! And his Title, estates and lands are forfeit! And the [former] nobleman found about it when they came to arrest him to take him to the Tower of London to await his beheading.

Impeachment of the President and Vice President and other civil officers of the United States is provided for in our Constitution.

What goes on in the House – “impeachment” – is merely to formulate a list of accusations.  The TRIAL where the accused may present evidence, takes place in the Senate. The PURPOSE of an impeachment and trial is not to get a guilty verdict in a criminal case, but simply to REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE. See Article I, Sec. 3, last clause.