It Is Sufficient If Only
One House of Congress Objects to the Electoral College Vote on January 6, 2021
To Compel The House of Representatives To Vote For The President of The United
States
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 29, 2020
 |
| The Disputed Hayes-Tilden Election of 1876 |
This article was inspired by my recent two-part interview (Part I and Part II) with the Post & Email and some of the public comments that followed. The question is whether both Houses of Congress need to reject a single return of a state’s Electoral College vote for an objection made during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, to prevail. As explained below, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject that state’s Electoral College votes for those votes to be voided.
There are five scenarios under Section 15 of the Electoral
Count Act of 1887(3 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.) (“ECA”) for counting and resolving Electoral
College votes disputes in the joint session of Congress. Scenarios 1 through 4 deal with cases in
which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity of the votes. Scenario 1 is the only case in which Congress
receives just one Electoral College return and both Houses must agree to reject
the vote. Scenario 5 is the only one of
the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree, but it only applies when
Congress receives competing electoral returns (one state submits to Congress more
than one Electoral College vote return).
With such disagreement, it provides that the stalemate between the
Houses shall be broken by Congress having to accept the electoral votes which a
state’s executive (Governor) shall have certified. Hence, under Section 15, one
could argue that Scenario 5, which allows for a case in which both Houses
disagree, only applies if Congress receives official competing electoral returns
and that if it receives only one such return then the two Houses must under
Scenario 1 both agree to reject that vote.
As explained below, Congress in joint session is not shackled by Section
15 because Section 15 is unconstitutional and even if constitutional, it does
not apply to a case of a corrupt underlying popular vote.
Again, there are five scenarios for resolution under Section
15 of the ECA. Scenarios 1 through 4
deal with cases in which both Houses either agree or disagree to the regularity
of the votes. Scenario 5 provides:
“(5) But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the
counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose
appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the
seal thereof, shall be counted.”
Scenario 1 only deals with cases in which there is only one
return of a state’s electoral votes. It
says that the votes must be counted unless both Houses reject the vote. So here
we have both Houses agreeing with each other to reject the vote. Implicit is
the case in which both Houses agree to accept the vote either with no objection
by any Senator or Representative or with voting to accept the electoral votes
after an objection. In both cases, the Houses are agreeing with each
other.
Scenario 2 through 5 deal with cases in which there is more
than one return of a state’s electoral votes. Scenario 2 is applicable only if
there was a “safe harbor” determination by a state’s “judicial or other methods
or procedures.” Scenario 3 only applies if there is a dispute as to what state
authority is the legal authority to appoint the electors and “the lawful
tribunal of such State” decides the matter.
But again, both Houses must agree on that decision. Scenario 4 only
applies if there is no “safe harbor” relief as to which of two electoral vote
returns are the valid ones. Again, both
Houses must either agree to accept or reject a return. Scenario 5 is the only
one of the five scenarios in which the two Houses disagree. With such disagreement,
it provides that the stalemate between the Houses shall be broken by Congress
having to accept that slate of electors which a state’s executive (Governor)
shall have certified.
So, Scenario 1 through 4 of Section 15 of the Electoral
Count Act only apply if both Houses of Congress agree, either to accept or
reject any state’s electoral votes. They
do not apply if both Houses of Congress disagree with each other. What applies in that case is Scenario 5. Scenario 5 is the only one in which the ECA
includes the possibility of both Houses disagreeing on how which of the
competing electoral returns are to be counted.
But we cannot use Scenario 5 if Congress received only one Electoral College
vote return from a state. Furthermore,
the provision purports to resolve the dispute between the Houses through the governor’s
certification. Seven contested states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico,
Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all sent competing electoral returns to
Congress. No governor of any of those states has certified the Republican returns. Hence, Congress can easily just ignore those competing
Republican returns and treat each such state as having provided just one electoral
return.
Notwithstanding this statutory structure, in a case in which
Congress only received one state’s official electoral return, both Houses of
Congress do not have to agree to reject that state’s Electoral College votes
for those votes to be voided. First, it is doubtful that Section 15 of the ECA
is constitutional. Simply, Congress
cannot substantively amend the Constitution with a statute. Congress amended Article II, Section 1 with
the Twelfth Amendment because it saw the original Constitution as having not
provided for a substantive election problem.
If Congress wanted to substantively change the Twelfth Amendment, again
for failure of the Constitution to have provided a solution to a certain
problem, it had to do so with another amendment as it did through the Twentieth
Amendment. Congress cannot just carve out pieces of the Twelfth Amendment and
then change them with a statute such as Section 15 of the ECA. The necessary
and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution does
not apply here to save Section 15.
Second, even if Section 15 of the ECA is constitutional, it does
not apply to limit Congress’s power in a case of a state’s corrupt popular vote,
including a case in which voters in a popular election and electors of the Elector
College voted for a candidate who is not an Article II natural born citizen. It is neither the popular election nor the
Electoral College that wields the ultimate power to select the President and
Vice President. Rather, the Constitution
ultimately tasks Congress with that authority.
The purpose of the ECA as a whole is to assist Congress in deciding how
and which electoral votes of a state to count when in joint session. While Section
15 requires that a state’s Electoral College votes be “regularly given by
electors,” it does not address cases in which there is a corrupt underlying popular
vote. Section 15 does not apply to limit Congress’s power when faced with a
corrupt underlying state’s popular vote. Section 15 therefore does not address cases
in which a state’s underlying popular vote was corrupted.
Section 15 does not provide for objections by Senators or Representatives
based on corruption of a state’s underlying popular vote. In fact, other than
to require that the elector’s vote be “regularly given,” the section makes no
mention of the possibility of a state’s popular vote being corrupt. Hence, both Houses do not have to agree to
reject a state’s Electoral College votes.
There can be a case in which for political reasons the two Houses disagree. If that were to happen, a governor’s
certification of any state’s Electoral College votes could not hamper Congress’s
constitutional duty to assure that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Constitution, Article
IV, Section 4), which means that it must guard our elections from any
corruption that would endanger our system of majority rule. The Constitution is the supreme law of the
land which means that the Constitution always prevails over a federal or state statute. Members of Congress take an oath or affirm to
support and defend the Constitution. Congress must have the constitutional power,
if not express then implied, when counting Electoral College votes not to count
corrupted and therefore unconstitutional popular votes which are the predicate
for those Electoral College votes. Scenario
1 of Section 15 tells us that much in its provision that the two Houses can
reject a state’s Electoral College vote that they conclude has not been “regularly
given by electors” of that state even if their “appointment has been so
certified” by that state’s governor.
Section 15 of the ECA cannot force a House of Congress to
count a vote when it would be a violation of the Constitution to do so. If Congress cannot agree to accept a state’s Electoral
College votes (both Houses disagree) because one House concludes that those
votes are based on a corrupt underlying popular vote, then that state shall
have failed to follow the command of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 which
provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct” its electors. Indeed, if a state can take back the power to
appoint electors, then it can lose that power for having conducted an illegal
election of those electors. States have rights under our Constitution, but not
the right to violate the Constitution.
With such a constitutional violation, no candidate is allotted that
state’s Electoral College votes unless, and as to not disenfranchise that
state’s voters, a candidate can demonstrate that he or she was the true winner
of that state’s popular vote and that therefore that state has satisfied its
constitutional duty. If no candidate can show that he or she received the
required majority of all the Electoral College votes (270 of 538), then the
House of Representatives shall elect the President and the Senate the Vice
President as provided for by the Twelfth Amendment.
As to the grounds for rejecting electoral votes due to
voting irregularities which disqualify an offending state’s appointment of
the electors so certified, there is enough doubt regarding the integrity of the
votes for members of Congress to challenge those votes and demand a full debate
on the floor. Those grounds are documented, among other places, in the numerous
state lawsuits and in the federal lawsuit filed by Texas which the U.S. Supreme
Court refused to hear because of standing. A large percentage of Americans do
not think we had a legitimate election. While the immediate seizure of evidence
and appointment of a Special Counsel, and a Congressional investigation
following the election is necessary, there is enough evidence to now reject the
Electoral College votes of the offending battleground states, Arizona, Georgia,
Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. See Peter Navarro, “The
Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities,”
accessed here (explains the six dimensions of election irregularities in the
six battleground states). As Peter Navarro concludes in his report, if “this is
not done before Inauguration Day, we risk putting into power an illegitimate
and illegal president lacking the support of a large segment of the American
people.” For further support findings of
irregularities in the Pennsylvania election, see Statement
by Pennsylvania lawmakers.
Third, under the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments, Congress
can reject either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate for not being
eligible and therefore failing to qualify for the office he or she seeks. This can occur in the case of such a candidate
not being an Article II “natural born citizen.” Congress does not need the ECA
to make such a challenge.
Senator Kamala Harris was born in CA to two non-U.S. citizen
parents. She was born with citizenship and allegiance to the U.S. and to her
parents’ two countries and not born with unity of natural allegiance to and
citizenship of the U.S. Born with
divided loyalties, she is at best a 14th Amendment “citizen” of the United
States, but not an Art. II “natural born citizen.” For the full details on what
the original meaning of a natural born citizen is and why Senator Harris is not
a natural born citizen, see the amicus
curiae brief which I authored on behalf of the U.S. Allegiance Institute
recently filed in the case of Robert C. Laity v. Kamala Devi Harris, then
pending in the D.C. Federal District Court under Case No. 20-cv-2511-EGS, which
the court dismissed for lack of standing (not on the merits of the meaning of a
natural born citizen). This case is now on appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
So, both Houses of Congress do not have to agree to reject a
state’s Electoral College vote for those votes to be voided. Both Houses or
even just one can object to a state’s Electoral College vote either because the
underlying popular vote is corrupt and/or because in the case of Senator Harris
she is not a natural born citizen. If both Houses reject that vote or just one House
does so, then unless President Trump and Vice President Pence can demonstrate
that they garnered at least 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives should
choose who shall be President and the Senate who shall be Vice President. A quorum
of two-thirds in each House (two-thirds of all the states for the House of
Representatives and two-thirds of all the Senators for the Senate) is needed.
Once there is a quorum in both Houses, to carry a vote a majority of all the
states (for the House of Representatives) and a majority of all the Senators
(for the Senate) is sufficient.
In the end, the Constitution and the circumstances of election
corruption it was designed to address should always trump a statute that not
only was not designed for that purpose, but actually thwarts that end.
Here is a list
of Republican Senators and Representatives who can be contacted to share with
them this article and urge them to make an objection to the Electoral College
vote on January 6, 2021.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 29, 2020
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
A timely and good article. I have re-posted excerpts and a link to your blog here https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3919926/posts ... and here ... https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/12/30/it-is-sufficient-if-only-one-house-of-congress-objects-to-the-electoral-college-vote-on-january-6-2021-to-compel-the-house-of-representatives-to-vote-for-the-president-of-the-united-states/ CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) -- ProtectOurLiberty.org
ReplyDeleteU.S. Senator Josh Hawley announces join House Reps and he will object to electoral votes from states involved in massive election voter fraud as exemplified by the Six Points of Fraud report by Peter Navarro: https://100percentfedup.com/peter-navarro-nails-it-six-key-election-fraud-strategies-in-key-states-that-prove-trump-won/ ... and ... https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/cannot-vote-certify-electoral-college-results-january-6th-breaking-mo-senator-josh-hawley-announces-will-object-certification-process/
ReplyDeleteCheck out Chisholm v. Georgia 1793.
ReplyDeleteWhat great news to learn that there will be members of Congress from both Houses who will not only stand in word for the Constitution but will actually "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and do what they in their heart and soul believe is the morally and constitutionally right thing to do regarding holding the offending states accountable for their illegal actions as demonstrated in the 2020 presidential election.
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a rare moment for our nation. Let us soon witness who are the statesmen/stateswomen in our national legislature and the true defenders and preservers of the republic.
rxsid,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your point on Chisholm?
So under this theory what happens in scenarios 2 - 4 if the two Houses do not agree?
ReplyDeleteFor example, here is your scenario 3:
“but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law;”
So if the Two Houses acting separately agree that one of the sets of electors is supported by the State under its laws, that is the set that is counted.
But what if the two Houses can’t reach an agreement?
How about the set of electors “whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”?
Scenario 5 provides: "But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted."
ReplyDeleteThis proposed solution only applies if a state submits competing slates of electors. If a state submits only one slate, then Scenario 1 applies. Under Scenario 1, Congress as a whole can reject such votes only if both Houses agree to such rejection. In other words, with a state providing only one electoral vote return, we do not get to Scenario 5, in which that state's governor would decide a stalemate between both Houses. This also means that under this statute if a state submits only one Electoral College return (Scenario 1), then Congress would be compelled to accept it unless both Houses reject it.
The point of my article is to show that this statutory framework is either unconstitutional or inapplicable to President Trump's election challenge in which he alleges that the offending states' underlying popular vote is corrupt. I maintain that we do not need both Houses of Congress to agree to have an offending state’s Electoral College vote rejected by Congress. Failure to agree by either House is a failure of Congress as a whole to agree. The same concept applies when Congress votes on whether to enact a law; both Houses have to agree.
Even assuming that we have a case of state multiple returns with a divided Congress (Scenario 5), a state's governor's certification as to which electors have been appointed can only be as valid as the underlying popular vote that supports that particular elector's win.
Again, Congress has the express or implied power under the Constitution to challenge the underlying popular vote which serves as the predicate for the state's appointment of its Electoral College electors. If the two Houses of Congress cannot agree on the validity of a state's Electoral College vote because there is a dispute as to whether the underlying popular vote is corrupt, then that state has failed to appoint under the command of the Constitution its electors for president and vice president. If no candidate gets the needed Electoral College majority (270), then the House of Representatives must select the president and the Senate the vice president.
You don't explain how scenario 3 is resolved if the two Houses disagree.
ReplyDeleteYour scenario 5 resolves scenario 3 in that case. It even refers to the previous scenarios as "such votes."
Scenario 3 provides: “[But in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title [3 USCS § 5], is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”
ReplyDeleteAs you have stated, under the statutory scheme, if both Houses disagree as to Scenario 3, then Scenario 5 provides the resolution (the governor breaks the deadlock).
But what you keep missing is that first, Section 15 is unconstitutional. Second, even if it is constitutional, in the case of corrupt underlying votes, it does not apply. The ECA was passed to address the problems presented when Congress is compelled to count competing state electoral vote returns, not problems presented when the predicate for those electoral votes is corrupt underlying popular election votes.
"But what you keep missing is that first, Section 15 is unconstitutional."
ReplyDeleteNo, Section 15 is constitutional. The 12th Amendment instructs the Congress to "open all the certificates" and count the votes. But the Constitution does not tell them how to differentiate the certificates if there are more than one set of electors. So Congress has the obligation and right to pass laws to help execute their powers. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 specifically tells Congress to pass such laws.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
in my opinion and reflecting back to what Mr Kerchner said about Obama some 12 years ago, ‘The Fix Was In’.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course this time around I am referring to kamala harris, as the votes were stopped at about midnight on election day and they installed whatever votes they could to make sure kamala harris won. There is no doubt ‘The Fix Was In’ for obama and now i am pretty sure the same fix was for kamala, notwithstanding biden however
1 of 3
ReplyDeleteCharles Hughes,
You said that the 12th Amendment instructs the Congress to "open all the certificates" and count the votes. But the Constitution does not tell them how to differentiate the certificates if there are more than one set of electors. So Congress has the obligation and right to pass laws to help execute their powers. Article 1 Section 8, Clause 18 specifically tells Congress to pass such laws.” I do not agree, for as I stated in my article, the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used to save the constitutionality of Section 15 of the ECA.
The Framers believed it should not be easy to amend the Constitution. They provided in Article V a rigorous process for amending the Constitution which does not include doing so by a Congressional Act. Your attempt at getting around the need for a constitutional amendment by resorting to the Necessary and Proper Clause must fail. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution provides:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
It is not difficult to argue that it is necessary to give Congress guidance on how Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment should be applied during an election dispute in the joint session of Congress. But satisfying the necessary prong of the provision far from resolves the question of whether the ECA’s Section 15 is constitutional.
Let us examine the “powers” requirement of the clause. You said: “The 12th Amendment instructs the Congress to ‘open all the certificates’ and count the votes.” You have misstated the amendment.
For the Necessary and Proper Clause to have saving application, there needs to be a connection between the subsequent law and the federal power existing in the Constitution. No congressional power over presidential and vice-presidential elections is found among the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Hence, Section 15 of the ECA cannot be justified as a law “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” So, we have to look to other parts of the Constitution to find such antecedent powers.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 provides that the executive power shall be vested in the president and that the states shall appoint electors to the Electoral College. It does not contain any powers of Congress regarding resolving any Electoral College dispute in the joint session of Congress.
Continued . . .
2 of 3
ReplyDeleteThe Twelfth Amendment also addresses presidential and vice-presidential elections. It provides in pertinent part: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. . .” The power to count is not in the first instance given to Congress. Rather, it is given to the vice president. It is the vice president that opens the certificates, and not Congress. Since “and the votes shall then be counted” is written in the passive voice, it is not clear who is to do the counting or how many counting opportunities there may be during the process. It appears from the full context of the sentence (it talks about the vice president) and the Amendment that the vice president is also to do at least the initial counting. In fact, many commentators maintain that the vice president counts the votes and that his task is merely ministerial. However, that is not the end of the story.
The Amendment states that the vice president is to do the counting “in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,” hence suggesting that Congress is to have a role in that process. The Amendment also does not tell us how the vice president is to count the votes should there arise a dispute as to the validity of a state’s slate of electors or what it should do if there exists credible and substantial evidence of a state’s underlying popular vote being corrupt and the electors’ certification therefore being potentially unlawful. If Congress were to object to the vice president’s counting, then it is Congress that does the ultimate counting. In fact, since the beginning of our nation, it has always been Congress that resolves any such dispute. The Democrats have confirmed this Congressional objection process and role in the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. The two Houses of Congress can either agree or disagree to accept a state’s Electoral College votes. If one or both chambers of Congress affirm the objection and the objection results in no candidate receiving the necessary 270 Electoral College vote majority, the Twelfth Amendment dictates how the president and vice president are to be selected.
There are no powers expressed or implied in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 or the Twelfth Amendment that can serve as the underlying basis for allowing a subsequent statute to give power to the executive of any state to break a stalemate between the two Houses of Congress on that issue. The Amendment does not give any state actor any power or role in that process. No statute giving a state’s executive such power can therefore claim that it draws its own force and authority from a power found in the Constitution. Hence, any statute giving such power to such a person clearly goes beyond the express or implied powers of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.
Continue . . .
3 of 3
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the executive of a state is not “any Department or Officer” of the United States. Hence, Congress cannot under the Necessary and Proper Clause give the executive of any state the power to decide who shall be president and vice president when there is a stalemate between the two Houses of Congress on the question.
With the existence of any antecedent power in the Constitution for Section 15, it is not possible that the law was designed to “for carrying into execution” any such power.
Your argument fails also because of the “proper” requirement of the clause. First, Section 15 of the ECA is a violation of separation of powers on steroids. It is not proper for Congress to pass a statute that makes such a drastic change to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and the Twelfth Amendment. The statute attempts to shackle Congress regarding its choice of president and vice president. The Constitution itself and not a statute has to do that.
Second, Congress knew that it needed a constitutional amendment to change the scheme of Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 when it passed the Twelfth Amendment itself, which amended that Article. It also knew that when it passed the Twentieth Amendment (presidential and vice-presidential succession), which further amended Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. Section 4 of the latter Amendment even expressly states that “Congress may by law provide for” succession in the case of death of the president or vice president. Congress again amended the Constitution regarding the office of president with the Twenty-Second Amendment (term limits), Twenty-Third Amendment (the District of Columbia getting presidential electors), and Twenty-Fifth Amendment (vice president becoming president upon president’s removal, death, or resignation, and acting president upon his inability). There is no principled argument that can distinguish Section 15 such that it becomes proper for Congress to pass it rather than amending the Constitution as it did with the Twelfth, Twentieth, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments.
The conclusion is that the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot save the ECA’s Section 15 from its unconstitutionality.
Hi Mario,
ReplyDeleteThis is an outstanding exposition of the Electoral College Act and the unconstitutionality of a statute being used to "amend" the Constitution.
You wrote in the penultimate paragraph that "There is no principled argument that can distinguish Section 15 such that it becomes proper for Congress to pass it rather than amending the Constitution as it did with the Twelfth, Twentieth, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments.
"The conclusion is that the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot save the ECA’s Section 15 from its unconstitutionality."
If the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts ("call it a tax" and "you don't have standing") would not accept Texas Representative Louie Gohmert request, would your exposition stand a chance in the D.C. "swampy"?
Art
What the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to do on January 6, 2021
ReplyDeletehttps://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2021/01/05/what-the-constitution-requires-congress-to-do-on-january-6-2021/
"If you win a medal at the Olympics; and it’s later discovered that you cheated by taking performance-enhancing drugs, you will be stripped of “win” and medal – and both will be awarded to your runner-up. The same Principle applies to stolen elections"
1. The Rule of Law is being erased in our Land
Several years ago, I saw a movie on TV. The setting was Berlin, Germany just after WWII at the time the Soviets were laying roles of barbed wire on the ground to mark the border between East and West Berlin. The main characters were a young American woman and a young German man. He had gotten a law degree while Hitler was taking over Germany; but he never practiced law. She asked him why and he said, “The Law disappeared”.
And that’s what’s going on in our Country: The Law – as the standard which those in government must obey – has disappeared and is being replaced by the age-old system where those with the power do what they want, and the cowards go along with it.
Just as the cowards in Germany went along with Hitler; cowards in America are going along with the Left’s brazen theft of the recent election. Countries are destroyed by such cowards; and that may be the reason Revelation 21:8 lists cowards as the first to be thrown into the Lake of Fire: Tyrants couldn’t get to first base without the acquiescence of cowards.
So this paper calls upon each Member of Congress to rise up and restore the Rule of Law to our Land.
Hi Mario,
ReplyDeleteI know now why politicians do NOT care what "natural born Citizen" means, and why some "citizens" are not eligible to be president.
marlene wrote on January 7, 2021 at 5:00 in the third paragraph "the law disappeared".
In the six battleground states where the state courts were petitioned, "the law disappeared".
When the U. S. Supreme Court was petitioned two times, "the law disappeared".
When Vice President Pence rejected the request for 10 days to allow the legislatures of a couple of the states to reconsider their certification of the electors, "the law disappeared".
When the Antifa and Black Lives Matter foot soldiers of the marxist/communist revolution masqueraded as Trump supporters and invaded the seat of legislative power of the United States, "the law disappeared".
When the House and Senate decided to NOT pursue challenging the electors of the suspected fraud in the battleground states, "the law disappeared".
>> https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-russian-revolution-1917
The Bolshevik Revolution
"On October 24–25, 1917, Bolshevik (left-wing socialist) forces under Vladimir Lenin seized key government buildings and stormed the Winter Palace, then the seat of the new government in Russia's capital, Petrograd (now St. Petersburg).
"The Bolshevik Revolution, also referred to as the "Great October Socialist Revolution," was the first successful Marxist coup in history.
"During this chapter of the Russian Revolution, the ineffectual Provisional Government was dislodged and ultimately replaced with a Soviet Socialist Republic under Lenin's leadership".
On October 24-25, 1917 when the bolschevik forces "under Vladimir Lenin seized key government buildings and stormed the Winter Palace", well, "the law disappeared".
The issue of the day is NOT the issue.
The "issue" of the day such as a flag burning, a monument ruined, a President Trump speech on January 6, 2021 and then a peaceful walk to the Capitol to let the legislators know about support for President Trump's "Stop the Steal" sentiments, is NOT the issue.
The "issue" is ALWAYS the revolution.
The impeachment suggestion is simply a way for House and Senate Democrats to continue the marxist revolution (whether they know it or not as useful idiots) to consolidate power and keep perpetual control of the U. S. government, election to election.
Kamala Harris is not a "natural born Citizen" but nobody cares because, "the law disappeared".
When the foot soldiers of the marxist/communist revolution stormed the U. S. Capitol masquerading as Trump supporters, "the law disappeared" literally when the 2nd American revolution was successful and the marxist/communists seized complete power of two branches of the federal government, the legislature (U. S. Congress) and the executive (U. S. President), and ideological "mindset" control of a willing accomplice, the judiciary (U. S. Supreme Court) which simply hated President Trump.
Now I understand why nobody cares why John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.
"The Bolshevik Revolution ... was the first successful Marxist coup in history.
The marxist/communist revolution which took place in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 was the most recent “successful Marxist coup in history”.
January 6, 2021 is the day "The law disappeared in America.
Art
While our nation suffered from riots, violent protest, looting, arson, destruction of property, assault on police and civilians, and murder, Stephen Colbert asked Senator Kamala Harris on June 17, 2020, on his, The Late Show, about the ongoing “protests” not being reported in the news. Kamala Harris interrupted him and said:
ReplyDelete“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. And they’re . . . this is a movement. I’m telling you. They are not going to stop. And and everyone beware because they are not going to stop. It is . . . they are not going to stop before election day in November and they are not going to stop after election day. And that should be . . . everyone should take note of that on both levels. That this is . . . they are not going to let up and they should not and we should not.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XxLR2r5oPg&feature=youtu.be
At no time did she condemn the outright anarchy, violence, crime, and attack on our police in our nation’s streets. At no time did she speak to the nation and ask for peace. Despite being a former federal criminal prosecutor, at no time did she ask people to respect due process of law. On the contrary, she encouraged anarchy and criminal behavior, said it should not stop, and told the nation to beware on “both levels.”
Hi Mario,
ReplyDeleteHere is a Twitter url which reveals whom Kamala Harris is supporting with her "this is a movement" rhetoric as you quoted on January 10, 2021 at 1:47 PM.
>> https://twitter.com/Yoder_Esqq/status/1348084508789239810
"In 1983, Susan Rosenberg planted a bomb outside the US Senate chamber to assassinate Republican senators.
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman @RepJerryNadler got Pres. Clinton to pardon Susan Rosenberg.
"She’s now a board member of Black Lives Matter Network, Inc".
It definitely is a "movement" with Antifa and Black Lives Matter foot soldiers of the marxist revolution on display on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. masquerading as pro-Trump supporters - definitely a false flag psychop which succeeded in scaring the House and Senate into certifying Joe "China is a friend" Biden as the 46th President of the United States...well, until, as he called her a couple of times after Nov. 3, 2020 - "President Harris"... until President Harris assumes command of the U. S. military. Wow.
The quote is on Patrick Byrne's Twitter page.
>> https://twitter.com/PatrickByrne
Art
In my comment, I said: "Despite being a former federal criminal prosecutor, . . ." It should say "former state criminal prosecutor." Harris was a California state prosecutor, not a federal prosecutor.
ReplyDelete