Letter to State Legisltures Re Their Constitutional Power and Duty

This is a generic letter designed to be sent to the GOP state legislators of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin.  See this link for the contact information for them.  I urge you and as many others as you can persuade to send this letter or something modified to suit your style as soon as possible.  For optimum results, they need to act by end of day Sunday, December 13.

 

Subject:  Please Exercise Constitutional Power and Duty to De-Certify Elector Election and Directly Appoint Electors

Senator [or Representative] [Fill in Blank]:

Please act to de-certify the presidential elector election in your state and directly appoint the GOP electors.  As I am sure you are aware, the deadline that maximizes success by this action is Sunday, December 13 because it will provide your approval of those electors meeting and voting on the date Congress has chosen, December 14, and then sending their results to the President of the U.S. Senate.

YOUR U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND DUTY

I hope that you understand your Constitutional power and duty to take these actions.

The Source of Your Power

Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ." the electors to vote for president.  The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore put it this way, “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary.”  531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).  Webster defines plenary as “full; entire; complete.”

You Are the Fact Finder and the Judge of What Evidence is Germane and Credible and Which Burden of Proof to Apply

Part of your plenary power is oversight to determine whether the election was conducted in the manner your state’s legislature has directed in law.  Since you are the final decision maker, you get to – indeed are required to -- decide what burden of proof, what evidentiary standard, what evidence you consider, and the persuasiveness of the evidence you have seen.

If you choose, you can de-certify the election only because the law has not been followed in the conduct of the election.  You can place the burden on the people conducting and certifying the election to prove to you that the law was complied with.  And you can require that they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Given the evidence available in your state, there is certainly reasonable doubt about whether your state’s election law has been followed and whether any results of the unlawful process are trustworthy.

The epistemological question we face is the reality that once illegal ballots have been mixed in with legal ballots, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent of the corruption.  That is why it is important to get the rationale for your decision, the burden of proof, and the evidentiary standard down properly.

I have heard the Democrats and media imply that evidence has to be ruled upon by a fact finder in a court of law before you can make a decision about it.  That is simply not true under the Constitution.  In the elector selection process, plenary means that you decide everything and as the fact finders in this process, it is your judgment and wisdom that matters.

The Buck Stops With You

The Constitution does not allow you to sluff off this decision or your independent judgment to someone else.

The bottom line is that the buck stops with you on the selection of electors from your state.  The fate of rule-of-law, election integrity, and the future of our Republic and liberty fall squarely on your shoulders.

The Courts Might Opine on Whether Your Election Law was Violated, but You Alone Can Provide the Remedy

The U.S. Supreme Court might save you from having to do your duty to determine whether the election was conducted in the manner in which you directed.  I wouldn’t count on it.  But they might.

But even if they do, you and your fellow legislators alone still have the duty to remedy a failed, de-certified election.  You also have the unquestioned, unreviewable power to remedy the situation by directly appointing the GOP electors from your state.

Supreme Court precedent and federal law is clear about your ability to remedy a failed election for electors.  You can directly appoint GOP electors once the election is de-certified for lack of reliability.

“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.  The judiciary might opine on whether the election was conducted in the manner in which you directed, but I seriously doubt that it will remedy any deficiencies in that regard.

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.”

Federal law also supports your Constitutional duty to provide the remedy.  Title 3 of the United States Code, §2 reads: “Failure to make choice on prescribed day - 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.”

When Your State Constitution Constrains You and the U.S. Constitution Empowers You, Which is Supreme?

Answer:  The U.S. Constitution delegation of power to you is supreme over your state constitution.  If your state constitution requires a super majority for the legislature calling itself into session or even prohibits the legislature from calling itself into session, your U.S. Article II mandate overrules those state constitutional restrictions.  You can constitutionally call your legislature into session.  And it is your duty to do so under these circumstances.

Another angle on this action on behalf of your federally delegated powers is that a meeting to de-certify and/or directly appoint electors is not a special session as usually meant by that term.  It is an emergency meeting to fulfill federal constitutional duties.

While the following of the constitutional scheme is always to be admired, it is a misunderstanding of what the federal constitutional path and grant is to state that the state constitution prohibits your exercise of your plenary power.

It is indeed seemingly paradoxical that the Article VI supremacy clause enables state sovereignty against a state constitution, but once one applies the supremacy clause to Article II’s delegation of plenary power to you and your fellow legislators, it makes sense.

Put another way, plenary is just another way for saying no one will stop you.  Nor should anyone stop you from doing what is necessary to perform your constitutional duty to insure that the selection of presidential electors is done according to rule of law.

What Happens if You Don’t Remedy a Failed (i.e., un-certified or de-certified) Elector Election?

Answer:  You take your state out of the race and make it much more likely that the fraudulent/illegal election in your state will mean that Biden wins.

The Twelfth Amendment details how elector votes are to be counted.  The important words to be focused upon are “a majority of the . . . Electors appointed.”  We see in Article II that states appoint electors.  If every state and the District of Columbia (see the 23rd Amendment) appoints electors, the magic number of electoral votes needed to avoid kicking the decision to Congress is 270.

But what if you and your state legislature or a court de-certifies the election, but no remedy to appoint new electors is provided by you?  Your state is out of the game completely.  And THAT changes the number elector votes necessary (“a majority . . . appointed”) to pick the president without going to Congress.

Let’s do the math on one scenario. Assume that all five (PA, MI, GA, AZ, and WI) of the GOP controlled legislatures out of the six states in play (or a court) declare(s) the election fraudulent. And assume that the Democrat-controlled legislature in Nevada and the courts allow its governor to certify the Biden electors.  That would mean that the total electors appointed would be 465 instead of the expected 538. A majority for picking the president would then be 233. Before counting the six states in play, Trump leads Biden by 232 to 227. If Nevada is added to that array for Biden and if the 5 other states have walked off the field by refusing to appoint electors, Biden wins 233 to 232 without going to Congress.

The point is that stopping certification of your state’s election alone, without you directly appointing electors, is unlikely to stop the corruption of the election from rewarding the malefactors in your state with a Biden victory.

THE “RESULTS” OF A CORRUPTED ELECTION REPRESENT THE THWARTING OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

Politically, the biggest argument against doing your duty to enforce the election laws of your state and the U.S. Constitution is the charge that by de-certifying and remedying that with direct appointment you are “thwarting the will of the people” or “reversing the results of an election.”

Those charges, of course, are completely untrue.  If the corruption in question produces reasonable doubt about the integrity of the “results,” they do NOT represent the will of the people.  Corrupted results represent a victory for those who would steal our rule-of-law, our Constitutional Republic, and our liberty.  Corrupted results represent the will of wannabe tyrants – not the people.

Put another way, a corrupted election no more represents the will of the people than a bank heist represents the will of the depositors.

SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES

I have done my own research on this topic by reading the Constitution, the Supreme Court precedent, the federal statutes in question, as well as the commentary by the Congressional Research Service.

The source that has most influenced me was the presentation of Chapman constitutional law professor John Eastman to a committee of the Georgia Senate on December 3, 2020.  This direct testimony and his answers to questions is a constitutional tour-de-force on the issues you face in this decision.  There is no better time spent than to watch the 37 minutes of this video if you have not seen it.  Professor Eastman makes clear that the plenary power delegated to you by the U.S. Constitution is supreme to your state constitution and statutes.  He says that means that you can call your chamber into session with a simple majority for this purpose, even if your state constitution says differently in other circumstances:

https://www.facebook.com/texasconstitutionalenforcement/videos/1354286434913314

I first started thinking about this issue after reading this article by Daniel Horowitz ( https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-yes-state-legislatures-do-indeed-have-the-final-say-over-this-election ).  That was a follow up to his original article (https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-state-legislatures-rectify-election-fraud ).

I found a great introduction to the federal statutes on the elector process at the Congressional Research Service:  https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641

These two articles on the general topic of the role of the state legislatures in elector selection may be useful as well. The first is entitled, “State Legislatures’ Exclusive Power to Choose Electors.” ( https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/state-legislatures-exclusive-power-to-choose-electors )  The second is entitled, “Presidential Endgame Being Set Now.” ( https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/presidential-endgame-being-set-now ).

FALLBACK POSITIONS IN CASE YOU CANNOT PERSUADE YOUR FELLOW LEGISLATORS BY DEC. 13

The Rutherford Hayes Strategy

If your fellow state legislators fail to join you by December 13 in directly selecting electors, I have a fallback plan called the “Rutherford Hayes Strategy.”  Persuade the GOP electors in your state to meet on December 14, vote, and send their results to the President of the Senate.

This will buy you time between December 14 and January 6 when the envelopes are opened by Vice President Pence for you and your fellow legislators to directly appoint them.  When Vice President Pence is confronted with two slates of votes from your state, he will be constitutionally bound to use the elector votes from those you have appointed.  I wrote this article to discuss that idea more:

https://www.texasfreepress.com/post/independent-gop-elector-action-can-buy-time

The Election Day Failure Strategy

This might be called the “Never Retreat, Never Surrender” legal strategy.  The argument is that the federal statute says that a state has to select electors on one day, general election day, November 3, 2020.  If the selection is not made on that day, the statute says it is a failed election and the selection is void.  For the states in that position (one of which the author maintains is yours) to have valid electors, the state legislature must directly appoint them.

Here is the link to the paper on this topic:  https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11/18/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void-9-0-decision

The author says that the right people (and I presume you as a legislator would have standing) in each state merely have to file a federal suit to this effect and it is highly likely to win.  He cites Supreme Court precedent to back up his argument.

Note that if this argument is successful, it will be the federal judiciary (probably the Supreme Court) that de-certifies, and IF the states in question are going to get electors, you will STILL be on the hook as a state legislator to appoint your electors directly.

I note that without the six states in question, Trump currently has a lead of 232 to 227. Of the six states in play, the state legislatures in five of them for a total of 73 electoral votes are controlled by GOP legislatures. Only Nevada with 6 votes has a Dem-controlled legislature.

CONCLUSION

I consider you to be like the men at the Battle of the Bulge.  In the war to protect rule of law, election integrity, the Constitution, and our liberty, you are in the breach while the enemies of all that are trying to punch through right now.  I can only watch from afar and hope that you stem the tide.  I urge you to lead your legislature to exercise your constitutional power and duty, and save the Union.  And please do it now!  The clock is ticking.

Toward liberty,

 

Tom Glass

Texas Constitutional Enforcement

www.txce.org

Read more

State Legislator Contact Info

State Legislative Contact Information for Republicans in

 Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin

 

 

Pennsylvania (20 elector votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator Name

Email

Capitol Office

Argall, David G

[email protected]

(717) 787-2637

Arnold, David

[email protected]

(717) 787-5708

Aument, Ryan P

[email protected]

(717) 787-4420

Baker, Lisa

lba[email protected]

(717) 787-7428

Bartolotta, Camera

[email protected]

(717) 787-1463

Brooks, Michele

[email protected]

(717) 787-1322

Browne, Patrick M

[email protected]

(717) 787-1349

Corman, Jake  *

[email protected]

(717) 787-1377

Disanto, John

[email protected]

(717) 787-6801

Gordner, John R

[email protected]

(717) 787-8928

Hutchinson, Scott E

[email protected]

(717) 787-9684

Langerholc Jr, Wayne

[email protected]

(717) 787-5400

Laughlin, Daniel

[email protected]

(717) 787-8927

Martin, Scott

[email protected]

(717) 787-6535

Mastriano, Doug

[email protected]

(717) 787-4651

Mensch, Bob

[email protected]

(717) 787-3110

Phillips-Hill, Kristin

[email protected]

(717) 787-7085

Pittman, Joe

[email protected]

(717) 787-8724

Regan, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 787-8524

Scavello, Mario M

[email protected]

(717) 787-6123

Stefano, Patrick J

[email protected]

(717) 787-7175

Tomlinson, Robert M

[email protected]

(717) 787-5072

Vogel Jr, Elder A

[email protected]

(717) 787-3076

Ward, Judy

[email protected]

(717) 787-5490

Ward, Kim L  **

[email protected]

(717) 787-6063

Yaw, Gene

[email protected]

(717) 787-3280

 

*    President Pro Tempore

** Majority Leader

 

State House

 

Representative Name

Email

Capitol Office

Barrar, Stephen

[email protected]

(717) 783-3038

Benninghoff, Kerry A  **

[email protected]

(717) 783-1918

Bernstine, Aaron

[email protected]

(717) 783-8322

Boback, Karen

[email protected]

(717) 787-1117

Borowicz, Stephanie

[email protected]

(717) 772-9925

Brooks, Bob

[email protected]

(717) 782-2895

Brown, Rosemary M

[email protected]

(717) 260-6171

Causer, Martin T

[email protected]

(717) 787-5075

Cook, Bud

[email protected]

(717) 783-8655

Cox, Jim

jcox[email protected]

(717) 772-2435

Culver, Lynda Schlegel

[email protected]

(717) 787-3485

Cutler, Bryan  *

[email protected]

(717) 783-6424

Day, Gary

[email protected]

(717) 787-3017

Delozier, Sheryl M

[email protected]

(717) 783-5282

Diamond, Russ

[email protected]

(717) 787-2686

DiGirolamo, Gene

[email protected]

(717) 783-7319

Dowling, Matthew D

[email protected]

(717) 783-5173

Dunbar, George

[email protected]

(717) 260-6132

Dush, Cris

[email protected]

(717) 787-3845

Ecker, Torren C

[email protected]

(717) 783-8875

Emrick, Joe

[email protected]

(717) 260-6159

Farry, Frank A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6140

Fee, Mindy

[email protected]

(717) 772-5290

Fritz, Jonathan

[email protected]

(717) 783-2910

Gabler, Matt

[email protected]

(717) 260-6142

Gaydos, Valerie S

[email protected]

(717) 787-6651

Gillen, Mark M

[email protected]

(717) 787-8550

Gillespie, Keith

[email protected]

(717) 705-7167

Gleim, Barbara

[email protected]

(717) 772-2280

Gregory, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 787-9020

Greiner, Keith J

[email protected]

(717) 783-6422

Grove, Seth M

[email protected]

(717) 783-2655

Hahn, Marcia M

[email protected]

(717) 783-8573

Heffley, Doyle

[email protected]

(717) 260-6139

Helm, Susan C

[email protected]

(717) 787-1230

Hennessey, Tim

[email protected]

(717) 787-3431

Hershey, Johnathan D

[email protected]

(717) 783-7830

Hickernell, David S

[email protected]

(717) 783-2076

Irvin, Rich

[email protected]

(717) 787-3335

James, R. Lee J

[email protected]

(717) 783-8188

Jones, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 783-8389

Jozwiak, Barry J

[email protected]

(717) 772-9940

Kail, Joshua D

[email protected]

(717) 260-6144

Kaufer, Aaron D

[email protected]

(717) 787-3798

Kauffman, Rob W

[email protected]

(717) 705-2004

Keefer, Dawn W

[email protected]

(717) 783-8783

Keller, Mark K

[email protected]

(717) 783-1593

Klunk, Kate A

[email protected]

(717) 787-4790

Knowles, Jerry

[email protected]

(717) 787-9029

Lawrence, John A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6117

Lewis, Andrew

[email protected]

(717) 783-2014

Mackenzie, Ryan E

[email protected]

(717) 787-1000

Mako, Zachary

[email protected]

(717) 772-5398

Maloney Sr, David M

[email protected]

(717) 260-6161

Marshall, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 260-6432

Masser, Kurt A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6134

Mehaffie III, Thomas L

[email protected]

(717) 787-2684

Mentzer, Steven C

[email protected]

(717) 787-1776

Metcalfe, Daryl D

[email protected]

(717) 783-1707

Metzgar, Carl Walker

[email protected]

(717) 783-8756

Mihalek, Natalie

[email protected]

(717) 783-1522

Millard, David R

[email protected]

(717) 783-1102

Miller, Brett R

[email protected]

(717) 705-7161

Mizgorski, Lori A

[email protected]

(717) 260-6407

Moul, Dan

[email protected]

(717) 783-5217

Murt, Thomas P

[email protected]

(717) 787-6886

Mustello, Marci

[email protected]

(717) 787-7686

Neilson, Ed

[email protected]

(717) 772-4032

Nelson, Eric R

[email protected]

(717) 260-6146

Oberlander, Donna

[email protected]

(717) 772-9908

O’Neal, Timothy J

[email protected]

(717) 787-3315

Ortitay, Jason

[email protected]

(717) 787-1281

Owlett, Clint

[email protected]

(717) 772-5371

Peifer, Michael

[email protected]

(717) 783-2037

Pickett, Tina

[email protected]

(717) 783-8238

Polinchock, F. Todd

[email protected]

(717) 787-5452

Puskaric, Michael J

[email protected]

(717) 260-6122

Pyle, Jeffrey P

[email protected]

(717) 783-5327

Rapp, Kathy L

[email protected]

(717) 787-1367

Reese, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 783-9311

Rigby, Jim

[email protected]

(717) 772-9924

Roae, Brad

[email protected]

(717) 787-2353

Rothman, Greg

[email protected]

(717) 783-2063

Ryan, Francis X

[email protected]

(717) 783-1815

Sankey, Tommy

[email protected]

(717) 787-7099

Saylor, Stan

[email protected]

(717) 783-6426

Schemel, Paul

[email protected]

(717) 783-5218

Schmitt, Louis C

[email protected]

(717) 787-6419

Schroeder, Meghan

[email protected]

(717) 705-7170

Simmons, Justin J

[email protected]

(717) 783-1673

Sonney, Curtis G

[email protected]

(717) 783-9087

Staats, Craig T

[email protected]

(717) 783-3154

Stephens, Todd

[email protected]

(717) 260-6163

Struzzi, James B

[email protected]

(717) 705-7173

Thomas, Wendi

[email protected]

(717) 772-9926

Tobash, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 260-6148

Toepel, Marcy

[email protected]

(717) 787-9501

Toohil, Tarah

[email protected]

(717) 260-6136

Topper, Jesse

[email protected]

(717) 787-7076

Turzai, Mike

[email protected]

(717) 772-9943

Walsh, Justin M

[email protected]

(717) 783-3825

Warner, Ryan

[email protected]

(717) 787-1540

Wentling, Parke

[email protected]

(717) 783-5008

Wheeland, Jeff C

[email protected]

(717) 787-2885

White, Martina A

[email protected]

(717) 787-6740

Zimmerman, David H

[email protected]

(717) 787-3531

 

*     Speaker of the House

**   House Majority Leader

 

News reports state that Pennsylvania Speaker of the House, Bryan Cutler, has said that he does not think the legislature has the plenary power to de-certify an election or directly appoint electors, and that the PA legislature is currently out of session, anyway.

 

Some Pennsylvania legislators tried to sign a resolution telling the Secretary of State and Governor not to certify.  That, of course, stops short of claiming their plenary power.  Those who have signed on as co-sponsors of the resolution are Reps. Russ Diamond, Eric Nelson, Paul Schemel, Greg Rothman, Frank Ryan, Dawn Keefer, Mike Jones, David Rowe, Michael Puskaric, Barbara Gleim, Bud Cook, Cris Dush, Stephanie Borowicz, David Zimmerman, Daryl Metcalfe, David Maloney, Dan Moul, Brad Roae, Kathy Rapp, Jim Cox, Rob Kauffman, Matthew Dowling, Eric Davanzo, Rich Irvin, Aaron Bernstine, and Andrew Lewis.

 

 

Michigan (16 elector votes)

 

State Senate

 

District

Name

Contact

District 8

Pete Lucido

[email protected]

District 10

Michael MacDonald

[email protected]

District 14

Ruth Johnson

[email protected]

District 15

Jim Runestad

[email protected]

District 16

Mike Shirkey

[email protected]

District 17

Dale Zorn

[email protected]

District 19

John Bizon

[email protected]

District 21

Kim LaSata

[email protected]

District 22

Lana Theis

[email protected]

District 24

Tom Barrett

[email protected]

District 25

Dan Lauwers

[email protected]

District 26

Aric Nesbitt

[email protected]

District 28

Peter MacGregor

[email protected]

District 30

Roger Victory

[email protected]

District 31

Kevin Daley

[email protected]

District 32

Ken Horn

[email protected]

District 33

Rick Outman

[email protected]

District 34

Jon Bumstead

[email protected]

District 35

Curt Vanderwall

[email protected]

District 36

Jim Stamas

[email protected]

District 37

Wayne Schmidt

[email protected]

District 38

Ed McBroom

[email protected]

 

State House

 

District

Name

Contact

District 17

Joseph Bellino

[email protected]

District 24

Steve Marino

[email protected]

District 30

Diana Farrington

[email protected]

District 32

Pamela Hornberger

[email protected]

District 33

Jeff Yaroch

[email protected]

District 36

Douglas Wozniak

[email protected]

District 38

Kathy Crawford

[email protected]

District 39

Ryan Berman

[email protected]

District 42

Ann Bollin

[email protected]

District 43

Andrea Schroeder

[email protected]

District 44

Matt Maddock

[email protected]

District 45

Michael Webber

[email protected]

District 46

John Reilly

[email protected]

District 47

Hank Vaupel

[email protected]

District 51

Mike Mueller

[email protected]

District 56

Jason Sheppard

[email protected]

District 57

Bronna Kahle

[email protected]

District 58

Eric Leutheuser

[email protected]ov

District 59

Aaron Miller

[email protected]

District 61

Brandt Iden

[email protected]

District 63

Matt Hall

[email protected]

District 64

Julie Alexander

[email protected]

District 65

Sarah Lightner

[email protected]

District 66

Beth Griffin

[email protected]

District 70

James Lower

[email protected]

District 72

Steven Johnson

[email protected]

District 73

Lynn Afendoulis

[email protected]

District 74

Mark Huizenga

[email protected]

District 77

Tommy Brann

[email protected]

District 78

Brad Paquette

[email protected]

District 79

Pauline Wendzel

[email protected]

District 80

Mary Whiteford

[email protected]

District 81

Gary Eisen

[email protected]

District 82

Gary Howell

[email protected]

District 83

Shane Hernandez

[email protected]

District 84

Phil Green

[email protected]

District 85

Ben Frederick

[email protected]

District 86

Thomas Albert

[email protected]

District 87

Julie Calley

[email protected]

District 88

Luke Meerman

[email protected]

District 89

Jim Lilly

[email protected]

District 90

Bradley Slagh

[email protected]

District 91

Greg VanWoerkom

[email protected]

District 93

Graham Filler

[email protected]

District 94

Rodney Wakeman

[email protected]

District 97

Jason Wentworth

[email protected]

District 98

Annette Glenn

[email protected]

District 99

Roger Hauck

[email protected]

District 100

Scott VanSingel

[email protected]

District 101

Jack O'Malley

[email protected]

District 102

Michele Hoitenga

[email protected]

District 103

Daire Rendon

[email protected]

District 104

Larry Inman

[email protected]

District 105

Triston Cole

[email protected]

District 106

Sue Allor

[email protected]

District 107

Lee Chatfield *

[email protected]

District 108

Beau LaFave

[email protected]

District 110

Greg Markkanen

[email protected]

 

* Speaker of the House

 

Georgia  (16 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

District

Senator

Email

1

Ben Watson

[email protected]

3

William Ligon

[email protected]

4

Billy Hickman

[email protected]

7

Tyler Harper

[email protected]

8

C. Ellis Black

[email protected]

9

P. K. Martin IV

[email protected]

11

Dean Burke

[email protected]

13

Carden Summers

[email protected]

14

Bruce Thompson

[email protected]

16

Marty Harbin

[email protected]

17

Brian Strickland

[email protected]

18

John F. Kennedy

[email protected]

19

Blake Tillery

[email protected]

20

Larry Walker III

[email protected]

21

Brandon Beach

[email protected]

23

Jesse Stone

[email protected]

24

Lee Anderson

[email protected]

25

Burt Jones

[email protected]

27

Greg Dolezal

[email protected]

28

Matt Brass

[email protected]

29

Randy Robertson

[email protected]

30

Mike Dugan

[email protected]

31

Bill Heath

[email protected]

32

Kay Kirkpatrick

[email protected]

37

Lindsey Tippins

[email protected]

45

Renee Unterman

[email protected]

46

Bill Cowsert

[email protected]

47

Frank Ginn

[email protected]

49

Butch Miller

butc[email protected]

50

John Wilkinson

[email protected]

51

Steve Gooch

[email protected]

52

Chuck Hufstetler

[email protected]

53

Jeff Mullis

[email protected]

54

Chuck Payne

[email protected]

56

John Albers

[email protected]

 

State House

 

District

Representative

Email

1

Colton Moore

[email protected]

2

Steve Tarvin

[email protected]

3

Dewayne Hill

[email protected]

4

Kasey Carpenter

[email protected]

5

Matt Barton

[email protected]

6

Jason Ridley

[email protected]

7

David Ralston  *

[email protected]

8

Matt Gurtler

[email protected]

9

Kevin Tanner

[email protected]

10

Terry Rogers

[email protected]

11

Rick Jasperse

[email protected]

12

Eddie Lumsden

[email protected]

13

Katie M. Dempsey

[email protected]

14

Mitchell Scoggins

[email protected]

15

Matthew Gambill

[email protected]

16

Trey Kelley

[email protected]

17

Martin Momtahan

[email protected]

18

Kevin Cooke

[email protected]

19

Joseph Gullett

[email protected]

20

Michael Caldwell

[email protected]

21

Scot Turner

[email protected]

22

Wes Cantrell

[email protected]

23

Mandi L. Ballinger

[email protected]

24

Sheri Gilligan

[email protected]

25

Todd Jones

[email protected]

26

Marc Morris

[email protected]

27

Lee Hawkins

[email protected]

28

Chris Erwin

[email protected]

29

Matt Dubnik

[email protected]

30

Emory Dunahoo

[email protected]

31

Tommy Benton

[email protected]

32

Alan Powell

[email protected]

33

Tom McCall

[email protected]

34

Bert Reeves

[email protected]

35

Ed Setzler

[email protected]

36

Ginny Ehrhart

[email protected]

43

Sharon Cooper

[email protected]

44

Don Parsons

[email protected]

45

Matt Dollar

[email protected]

46

John Carson

[email protected]

47

Jan Jones

[email protected]

49

Chuck Martin

[email protected]

52

Deborah Silcox

[email protected]

67

Micah Gravley

[email protected]

68

J. Collins

[email protected]

69

Randy Nix

[email protected]

70

Lynn Ratigan Smith

[email protected]

71

Philip Singleton

[email protected]

72

Josh Bonner

[email protected]

73

Karen Mathiak

[email protected]

97

Brooks Coleman

[email protected]

98

David Clark

[email protected]

103

Timothy Barr

[email protected]

104

Chuck Efstration

[email protected]

106

Brett Harrell

[email protected]

109

Dale Rutledge

[email protected]

110

Andrew Welch

[email protected]

112

Dave Belton

[email protected]

114

Tom Kirby

[email protected]

115

Bruce Williamson

[email protected]

116

Terry Lamar England

[email protected]

117

Houston Gaines

[email protected]

119

Marcus A. Wiedower

[email protected]

120

Trey Rhodes

[email protected]

121

Barry Fleming

[email protected]

122

Jodi Lott

[email protected]

123

Mark Newton

[email protected]

129

Susan Holmes

[email protected]

130

David Knight

[email protected]

131

Ken Pullin

[email protected]

133

Vance Smith

[email protected]

134

Richard H. Smith

[email protected]

138

Mike Cheokas

[email protected]

140

Robert Dickey

[email protected]

141

Allen Peake

[email protected]

144

Danny Mathis

[email protected]

145

Rick Williams

[email protected]

146

Shaw Blackmon

[email protected]

147

Heath Clark

[email protected]

148

Noel Williams, Jr.

[email protected]

149

Jimmy Pruett

[email protected]

150

Matt Hatchett

[email protected]

151

Gerald E. Greene

[email protected]

152

Ed Rynders

[email protected]

155

Clay Pirkle

[email protected]

156

Greg Morris

[email protected]

157

Bill Werkheiser

[email protected]

158

Larry "Butch" Parrish

[email protected]

159

Jon G. Burns

[email protected]

160

Jan Tankersley

[email protected]

161

Bill Hitchens

[email protected]

164

Ron Stephens

[email protected]

166

Jesse Petrea

[email protected]

167

Jeff Jones

[email protected]

169

Dominic LaRicca

[email protected]

170

Penny Houston

[email protected]

171

Jay Powell

[email protected]

172

Sam Watson

[email protected]

173

Darlene K. Taylor

[email protected]

174

John Corbett

[email protected]

175

John LaHood

[email protected]

176

Jason Shaw

[email protected]

178

Steven Meeks

[email protected]

179

Don Hogan

[email protected]

180

Steven Sainz

[email protected]

 

* Speaker of the House

 

 

Arizona (11 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator

Distr

Pty

Email

Phone

Sylvia Allen

6

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5409

Sonny Borrelli -- Majority Whip

5

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5051

Paul Boyer

20

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4173

Kate Brophy McGee

28

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4486

Heather Carter

15

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5503

Karen Fann -- President

1

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5874

David C. Farnsworth

16

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-3020

Eddie Farnsworth -- President Pro Tempore

12

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5735

David Gowan

14

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5154

Rick Gray -- Majority Leader

21

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5413

Sine Kerr

13

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5955

Vince Leach

11

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-3106

David Livingston

22

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4178

J.D. Mesnard

17

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4481

Tyler Pace

25

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5760

Frank Pratt

8

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-5761

Michelle Ugenti-Rita

23

R

[email protected]

(602) 926-4480

 

State House

 

Representative

District

Email

Phone

John Allen

15

[email protected]

(602) 926-4916

Nancy Barto

15

[email protected]

(602) 926-5766

Leo Biasiucci

5

[email protected]

(602) 926-3018

Walter Blackman

6

[email protected]

(602) 926-3043

Shawnna Bolick

20

[email protected]

(602) 926-3244

Russell "Rusty" Bowers -- Speaker

25

[email protected]

(602) 926-3128

Noel Campbell

1

[email protected]

(602) 926-3124

Frank Carroll

22

[email protected]

(602) 926-3249

Regina E. Cobb

5

[email protected]

(602) 926-3126

David L. Cook

8

[email protected]

(602) 926-5162

Timothy M. Dunn

13

[email protected]

(602) 926-4139

John Fillmore

16

[email protected]

(602) 926-3187

Mark Finchem

11

[email protected]

(602) 926-3122

Travis W. Grantham

12

[email protected]

(602) 926-4868

Gail Griffin

14

[email protected]

(602) 926-5895

John Kavanagh

23

[email protected]

(602) 926-5170

Anthony T. Kern

20

[email protected]

(602) 926-3102

Jay Lawrence

23

[email protected]

(602) 926-3095

Becky A. Nutt -- Majority Whip

14

[email protected]

(602) 926-4852

Joanne Osborne

13

[email protected]

(602) 926-3181

Kevin Payne

21

[email protected]

(602) 926-4854

Warren Petersen -- Majority Leader

12

[email protected]

(602) 926-4136

Steve Pierce

1

[email protected]

(602) 926-5584

Tony Rivero

21

[email protected]

(602) 926-3104

Bret Roberts

11

[email protected]

(602) 926-3158

Thomas "T.J." Shope, Jr. -- Speaker Pro Tempore

8

[email protected]

(602) 926-3012

Bob Thorpe

6

[email protected]

(602) 926-5219

Ben Toma

22

[email protected]

(602) 926-3298

Kelly Townsend

16

[email protected]

(602) 926-4467

Michelle Udall

25

[email protected]

(602) 926-4856

Jeff Weninger

17

[email protected]

(602) 926-3092

 

 

 

Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)

 

State Senate

 

Senator

District

Email

André Jacque

1

[email protected]

Robert Cowles

2

[email protected]

Dale P. Kooyenga

5

[email protected]

Alberta Darling

8

[email protected]

Devin LeMahieu

9

[email protected]

Stephen Nass

11

[email protected]

Scott Fitzgerald

13

[email protected]

Luther Olsen

14

[email protected]

Howard Marklein

17

[email protected]s.wisconsin.gov

Dan Feyen

18

[email protected]

Roger Roth

19

[email protected]

Duey Stroebel

20

[email protected]

Van H. Wanggaard

21

[email protected]

Kathy Bernier

23

[email protected]

Patrick Testin

24

[email protected]

Dave Craig

28

[email protected]

Jerry Petrowski

29

[email protected]

Chris Kapenga

33

[email protected]

 

 

State House

 

District

Representative

Email

1

Joel Kitchens

[email protected]

2

Shae Sortwell

[email protected]

3

Ron Tusler

[email protected]

4

David Steffen

[email protected]

5

Jim Steineke

[email protected]

6

Gary Tauchen

[email protected]

13

Rob Hutton

[email protected]

15

Joe Sanfelippo

[email protected]

21

Jessie Rodriguez

[email protected]

22

Janel Brandtjen

[email protected]

23

Jim Ott

[email protected]

24

Dan Knodl

[email protected]

25

Paul Tittl

[email protected]in.gov

26

Terry Katsma

[email protected]

27

Tyler Vorpagel

[email protected]

28

Gae Magnafici

[email protected]

29

Rob Stafsholt

[email protected]

30

Shannon Zimmerman

[email protected]

31

Amy Loudenbeck

[email protected]

32

Tyler August

[email protected]

33

Cody Horlacher

[email protected]

34

Rob Swearingen

[email protected]

35

Mary Felzkowski

[email protected]

36

Jeffrey Mursau

[email protected]

37

John Jagler

[email protected]

38

Barbara Dittrich

[email protected]

39

Mark Born

[email protected]

40

Kevin David Petersen

[email protected]

41

Joan Ballweg

[email protected]

42

Jon Plumer

[email protected]

49

Travis Tranel

[email protected]

50

Tony Kurtz

[email protected]

51

Todd Novak

[email protected]

52

Jeremy Thiesfeldt

[email protected]

53

Michael Schraa

[email protected]

55

Mike Rohrkaste

[email protected]

56

Dave Murphy

[email protected]

58

Rick Gundrum

[email protected]

59

Timothy Ramthun

[email protected]

60

Robert Brooks

[email protected]

61

Samantha Kerkman

[email protected]

62

Robert Wittke

[email protected]

63

Robin Vos  *

[email protected]

67

Rob Summerfield

[email protected]

68

Jesse James

[email protected]

69

Bob Kulp

[email protected]

70

Nancy VanderMeer

[email protected]

72

Scott Krug

[email protected]

75

Romaine Quinn

[email protected]

82

Ken Skowronski

[email protected]

83

Chuck Wichgers

[email protected]

84

Mike Kuglitsch

[email protected]

85

Patrick Snyder

[email protected]

86

John Spiros

[email protected]

87

James W. Edming

[email protected]

88

John Macco

[email protected]

92

Treig Pronschinske

[email protected]

93

Warren Petryk

[email protected]

96

Loren Oldenburg

[email protected]

97

Scott Allen

[email protected]

98

Adam Neylon

[email protected]

99

Cindi Duchow

[email protected]

* Speaker of the House


Death by Lockdown

Frederick Bastiat taught us with his Broken Window Fallacy and Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson that you always have to look at the seen and the unseen. In other words, in order to determine the true effect of a governmental action, you have to compare a model of the world with the policy against a model of the world without the policy. And you can't just narrowly focus on one aspect of the implementation of the policy, you have to look at the big picture to include all of the effects of the policy.
Applying that lesson to lockdowns and mask mandates You can't just look at what has happened with COVID this year. You have to model what would have happened had there not been lockdowns, and you have to analyze ALL causes of death (and other effects) in both scenarios.
Tom Woods knows this lesson deep in his bones. And he has applied it for us to see. This is just one of his many devastating commentaries on the topic. The piece is called Death by Lockdown.

El Paso Texas Appellate Court Stops County Lockdown!

Good news to be thankful for! Yesterday, the Eighth District Appellate Court in El Paso granted a temporary order halting enforcement of El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego's COVID lockdown edicts, which he had extended through December 1.

Recall that this is the case filed by El Paso businesses that want to stay open reported on yesterday that the Texas Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin had declined to expedite, opting to wait for the Eighth District to get the job done.

The order to stop enforcement of the edict is temporary until a full trial on the merits can be conducted.

Ken Paxton's AG office has intervened on behalf of the State of Texas on behalf of the businesses, so the case name is State of Texas v El Paso County. The case number is 08-20-00226-CV.

The businesses who filed the suit are Pizza Properties, Inc., Wing Daddy's, Toro Burger Bar, Charcoaler, LLC, Triple A Restaurants, Inc., CC Restaurant LP, FD Montanta, LLC, WT Chophouse, LLC, Verlander Enterprises, LLC, and Bakery Ventures I, LTD.

The businesses are being represented by Kemp Smith LLP with lead attorney Mark Osborn and assisted by Shelly Rivas and Deborah Trejo.

Harry County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Travis County, the City of Austin, and Fort Bend County Judge KP George filed amicus briefs on behalf of the El Paso County Judge.

The Eighth District order was issued by a three judge panel led by Chief Justice Jeff Alley. He was joined in his order by Justice Gina Palafox. Justice Yvonne Rodriguez dissented.


State Legislatures Have Final Say on Their Electors

In the race for President of the United States, there are now two burning questions.  First, who makes the final decision about who the electors are from a state?  And second, when there is evidence of widespread fraud, but the fraud has been so effectively done that one can only prove fraud exists, but not its exact scope, what is the remedy to be implemented by the final decision maker?

Let’s go first to fundamentals -- the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution -- to determine who makes the final decision.

Article II, Section 1 says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”

Later it says:  “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States . . .”

And in the Twelfth Amendment, we find the following process for what happens after the electors meet and vote in their state:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, . . .  they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- 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 person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . .

So, we have our answer to the first burning question.  It is the state legislature that picks its electors.  The governor does not.  The state judiciary does not.  The state secretary of state does not.  The federal judiciary does not.  The STATE LEGISLATURE does.  Once again, we see the proof of the framer’s design that the states are the masters of the federal government.

In the first presidential election under the U.S. Constitution in 1788, only 11 states had ratified the Constitution and participated in the federal elections. (North Carolina and Rhode Island were the holdouts that only ratified after the First Congress and Senate had been assembled and after George Washington was president.)

That year, New York’s legislature could neither decide on a manner to select its electors, nor did it directly select electors.  As a result, only ten states selected electors and elected George Washington in 1788.  Half of those state’s electors were chosen directly by their state legislature.  The others had various schemes for voters picking the electors.  One other had the voters pick a short list, and the state legislature pick the final electors from the voter selected short list.

And we come to the second question, what if a state legislature passes a statute that directs the manner in which electors are to be chosen, and the people conducting the election engage in election fraud, or allow it to occur?  And let us assume that investigation produces evidence that fraud certainly occurred, but the extent of the fraud is not known because those executing the fraud were successful in covering their tracks?  Who decides what to do then?  And what is the remedy for massive fraud successfully covered up by the fraudsters?

It is clear that it still is the state legislature that decides whether the election to select electors was conducted in the manner in which they directed.  If the state legislature thinks there is enough doubt that the election was conducted honestly, they have the power to select the electors themselves.  The Constitution made them the sole decider on choosing electors from their state.

But what role does the United States judiciary, especially the U.S. Supreme Court have in all this?

Article III, Sec. 2 says:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . .  to Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States.”  So I read that if a presidential or vice-presidential candidate has a controversy over whether a citizen of a particular state is not conducting the election in the manner by which the state legislature has directed via state statute, the federal judiciary can opine on whether the election officials are following the law and issue orders that the law be complied with.

Given the facts on the ground in Pennsylvania, there may be enough ballots that were received after election day, the counting of which violates Pennsylvania law, that the U.S. Supreme Court can order that those ballots not be counted and change the result from what would have happened had those ballots been illegally counted.

There may be other such situations in other states, but I do not know the details.  Other state procedures may catch voter fraud in states enough to change currently announced counts.  For instance, it is known that software rejected as insecure by Texas authorities has been found in one county in Michigan to be fraudulently changing Trump votes to Biden votes.  It is my understanding that this was caught by counting paper backup ballots.  There are lots of other counties in Michigan using the same vendor that need to have the electronic results checked against paper.  That could be outcome determinative.

But what if despite the Supreme Court’s order, election officials in Pennsylvania mixed in votes received after election day with all the other votes?  There is no way now to determine the lawful results.  What if there is other evidence of fraud, but insufficient evidence to prove the fraud’s extent?

Do not count on the U.S. Supreme Court to save us.  They do not think - and I agree with them - that they have the authority to declare fraud and set a remedy for the fraud by choosing a slate of electors.

The state legislature can declare that the Trump electors are the electors from its state in such a situation, though.  They just have to have the commitment to honest elections and the Constitution and the will to do so.

Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the following states:  Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  The Nevada legislature is Democrat.  I am assuming from the evidence available at the moment that North Carolina and Alaska are Trump wins without any need for further action.

Assuming Biden gets Nevada (not a certainty), without the five Republican states in play, Georgia (16), Pennsylvania (20), Arizona (11), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10), Trump has 232 elector votes and Biden has 233.  Trump needs 38 votes to get to the majority.

There are several permutations that get him to 270.  Pennsylvania, Georgia, and any one of the others is one likely scenario.  And if a thorough vetting of Nevada shows in an honest count that Trump won it, all that Trump needs from the five Republican legislative battleground states is 32 votes.  Pennsylvania and either Georgia or Michigan does it there.  Any combination of three of the five states does it.

So, bottom line, if the right three Republican legislatures take their oaths to the Constitution and honest elections seriously, then rule of law, the American people, and Trump win and the forces who would destroy our Constitution and liberty lose.

Pictured is the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg.


Building Lifeboats in Case Facebook Sinks Us

As anyone who is paying attention knows, Facebook is suppressing speech of liberty-oriented people and accelerating the complete destruction of large groups advocating on liberty topics.

Just last week alone, Facebook destroyed the wonderful This is Texas Freedom Force page that had over 90,000 likes.  That is the group that has done yeoman's work in stopping George P Bush's desecration of the Alamo and on May 30, 2020 literally put their bodies between a mob of thousands and the Alamo to save it from vandalism.

Open Carry Texas had its 30,000 plus group eliminated on Facebook last week.  That is the group that worked to get permitted open carry of handguns in Texas and that has educated law enforcement and the public about the laws of Texas that allow permitless carry of long guns.

Our Texas Constitutional Enforcement group that now has over 5300 members on Facebook was made to completely disappear for 18 hours in late July after we shared a livestream of heroic doctors telling how they had saved lives from COVID (in ways that Big Pharma did NOT want us to know about).

So, we have started preparing for the day when Facebook will permanently ban us by building lifeboats in newly emerging social media sites with Facebook functionality and look & feel.

The services we have set up shop on are listed below.  You can click on the link for each to see the Texas Constitutional Service there:

Blabbook (This service is rapidly growing.  It might be the smallest at the moment, but it is owned by a great conservative Texan, Steve Blu.  And you KNOW how we like to let Texans run Texas around here!)

FreedomLake (This is where Open Carry Texas moved to.)

MeWe  (Where This is Texas Freedom Force has moved to.)

Wimkin (A site owned by a Pennsylvania conservative.  The weird name is an amalgamation of the owner's website for streaming content booted off Youtube - worldmustknow )

And for completeness, here are the links for Facebook.  We have a group, which is the largest and most active.  And we have a page:

Facebook Texas Constitutional Enforcement group

Facebook Texas Constitutional Enforcement page

 

 

 


Did You Assume My Contagiousness?

I keep trying to hit on ways to communicate the violation of due course of law presented by mask mandates and lockdowns.  The fundamental idea of due course of law is that the law should presume us innocent until being proven guilty.  And another fundamental of due course of law is that the elements of a crime need to be properly specified and each element must be proven before a person can be convicted and punished.

To respect those fundamental concepts, you cannot define a crime in a way that presumes the most fundamental of the elements in the crime - in this case the actual harm intended to be avoided - to be a committed in the definition of the crime.  But that is what mask mandates do.  The presume you guilty of being a contagious threat to others and punish you if you do not wear the mask, whether you actually ARE a threat to others or not.

A mask mandate (and a lockdown) presume you guilty of being a threat without even a chance to prove your innocence.

With this meme's formulation, I play with the ridiculous "Did you just assume my gender?" attack and apply it to the mask mandate.  The use of the formulation in regards to gender is ridiculous because one cannot wish reality away.  You cannot change the DNA you are born with.  So accurately identifying the reality of a person's gender is far from being a failing.  It is a virtue.

But assuming someone's state of health, presuming them to be contagious and therefore a threat and requiring some restriction of liberty as a result is a violation of the presumption of innocence and therefore due course of law.

I hope I have not ruined what is intended to be humorous with over-analysis.  But they say many a truth is said in jest.

The truth is that mask mandates and lockdowns are unjust (and unhealthy) presumptions that everyone is a threat when those presumptions are false in the vast majority of situations.


Executive Orders are Not Law!

Legitimate executive orders communicate from the chief executive to members of the executive branch issues of policy - how to enforce the law, how to comply with the law, and how to comply and enforce the Constitution. A sure way to tell if an executive order is illegitimate is if it defines some act that citizens are required to do or prohibited from doing under threat of punishment.

No one should comply with an executive order directed at citizens and no law enforcement officer who wants to honor his or her oath should have anything to do with attempting to enforce it.

Here is the Texas separation of powers constitutional provision:

ARTICLE 2. THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

Sec. 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AMONG THREE DEPARTMENTS. The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.


The Case Against Lockdowns

Just watching what is going on online and listening to news, it appears that more and more of the people of Texas are ready to throw off the chains of the lockdowns imposed on their livelihoods and liberty by their governor and by their county and city governments.

This article makes the case that the orders by Texas state and local officials are not allowed by current Texas law, and they certainly are not allowed by the Texas Bill of Rights.

The lockdowns make us ask fundamental questions about the nature of the government created by the constitutions of Texas and the United States. What is the legitimate function of our government in Texas? What is the government permitted to do and what is it prohibited from doing under our Constitution?

The framers of Texas formed our government to allow us to gain the benefits from interacting with others while being protected from aggression by others under fixed rules of law. Because they realized that the force of government could be abused, making government, itself, the aggressor/tyrant, the Texas Bill of Rights was created to limit the power of government while it was going about lawfully protecting citizens from the threats of other citizens.

Judicial opinions in the Texas and federal judiciary often talk about balancing the “police power” of Texas against the liberties protected in the Texas Bill of Rights. But when I read my Texas Constitution, when I search for the word, “police,” I find references to pensions and benefits for surviving spouses, but no definition or discussion of police power. I find no overarching principles discussing safety or health or welfare or the common good. I only find a full-throated dedication to liberty and a “free government” in the preamble to the Texas Bill of Rights, as well as absolute, no-exception statements about habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights in general.

As Justice Don Willett said in the 2015 case, Patel v Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, “The Texas Constitution – then and today – exists to secure liberty.” Liberty and justice for all are our highest political values in Texas. In other words, in Texas, we err on the side of liberty over safety and emergency.

So, what is a legitimate police power that is authorized by the Constitution that is to be balanced against the liberties protected by the Texas Bill of Rights? Legitimate, constitutional police power is justified when it is used against force, fraud, or threats by one citizen against another.

If someone murders, or robs, or sexually assaults another, that is clearly actionable under the police power. It is even acceptable to use law and law enforcement to retaliate against those who threaten others. We have lots of constitutional laws implementing that idea: DWI, terroristic threats, harassment, mental health evaluations and commitment if a person is determined to be a threat to others, etc. To deny liberty to individuals under all of those threats requires due process for each individual, requiring proof that they indeed have threatened others.

Note that police power is NOT legitimate against potential threats or low likelihood threats. Our law and our Constitution requires that individuals have to have actually harmed someone or knowingly threatened someone to legitimately have the awesome power of the police brought to bear against them. Pre-crime thinking is not allowed under our system of government. We as individuals don’t get to speculate that someone MIGHT harm someone else, therefore their liberty should be curtailed. To do so would completely swallow up the principle that liberty is our highest value.

It is the threat of harm (not the mere potential or possibility of harm) by an individual to another that justifies the police power in a pandemic situation.   In the Texas Health and Safety Code, we have the Communicable Disease Chapter 81 (enacted in 1989) that says if the government “has reasonable cause to believe that an individual is ill with, has been exposed to, or is the carrier of a communicable disease, the department or health authority may order the individual . . . to implement control measures that are reasonable and necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of the disease in this state.”  Violation of such orders is a Class B misdemeanor. (Section 81.083)

Note that the statute as applied to individuals is a legitimate use of the police power of Texas because it focuses on someone who either is proven to be or has a high likelihood of being a threat to others.  What this statute does not address, and what would NOT be a legitimate use of police power is the situation we face with COVID-19 – the fact that there is a low likelihood that EVERYONE might be a threat to others because the disease makes people contagious for a period of time without them (or anyone) knowing it.

Note that it is NOT the Communicable Disease statute that is being invoked by Texas officials for the lockdown. The reason is that the rationale for the lockdown is not a legitimate one for the use of the police power. We are being locked down and people’s liberty and natural rights to meet the obligation of contracts, to earn a living, to peaceably assemble, to worship, and to travel are being violated because each one of us MIGHT be a threat to others.

Because Texas courts balance legitimate police power against burdens on liberty, any attorney suing on behalf of Texans over this issue will have to persuade the Texas judiciary that the pre-crime thinking that people’s liberty ought to be restricted because they MIGHT be a threat to someone else is not a legitimate use of the police power. Since the rationale for the use of force is completely illegitimate under our system, there is nothing to balance against the guaranteed liberties of Texans. Something (liberty) beats nothing (illegitimate attempt at the use of police power) every time.

The statute being invoked by the governor, the counties, and cities is the Texas Disaster Act, passed in 1975, and codified in the Texas Government Code as Chapter 418, called Emergency Management.

Before we look at what that code says, it is important to know that the Texas Bill of Rights says about whether emergencies justify the violation of our natural rights in Texas. Stated completely and simply, they don’t. See these absolute statements in the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE
To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
Sec 12. HABEAS CORPUS.
The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.

Section 418.185 in the Emergency Management Chapter of the Government Code allows the governor, a county judge, or a mayor to order an evacuation of a disaster area. Section 418.018 empowers the governor to control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area and Section 418.018 empowers county judges and mayors to do the same. Section 418.173 allows the state and localities to set a $1,000 fine or confinement in jail for up to 180 days for violating emergency management plans.

But I can find no authorization in the cited law for the draconian orders issued by the governor and localities to shut down businesses, disallowing assemblies, or worship in the Texas Disaster Act. Even if they did, if they do not cite individuals for being a known or likely threat to others, those actions are likewise not legitimate police actions in Texas.

To those who are thinking that we desperately NEED to save lives by restricting the liberty of people who might be threats to others, I say several things. First, the medical community has told us that this disease is mostly a threat to those with known issues of compromised immune systems, including the elderly. Given that, the people most at risk need to have that information and can self-isolate if they choose.

Second, many will voluntarily follow recommendations by public health officials. It is just that a one-size-fits-all government mandate is not constitutionally permissible.

Third, we are being told that three clinical trials show an antidote/mitigating regimen to COVID-19. We just got the news, today that the nursing home in Texas City has successfully stopped COVID-19 with that hydroxychloroquine treatment.It appears the threat of COVID-19 is now much less than it was.

Fourth, Representative Steve Toth has reminded us that deaths occur from economic collapse, maybe more than deaths caused by this disease.  Focus on one threat to the exclusion of others is not responsible policymaking.

Fifth, when appropriate, let’s use the individual restrictions with due process in the Communicable Disease statute against those who are proven to be threats by being actually ill or who are known to have been exposed to COVID-19.

Liberty allows a free people to more flexibly and rapidly adapt to threats from nature. Command and control is not only morally offensive and unconstitutional, it is not as practical as liberty, either.

It is time that the people of Texas tell our elected officials that it is past time to honor their oaths and act in a constitutional way in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak. It is time to end the lockdown and set Texans free to responsibly manage their environment.

Tom Glass lives in Northwest Harris County. Click here to reach his email. He is also on Facebook as Tom G Glass. He leads a group called Texas Constitutional Enforcement which can be explored at its website or Facebook group.


Why Mask Mandates and Culture are Worth Resisting

I posted this in my Facebook Texas Constitutional Enforcement group on July 2, 2020. I just reread what I said three months ago, now, and don’t think I got anything wrong.

OK. With the governor’s latest mask edict today (his 29th executive order of the COVID-19 scare), I had to do a gut check. He continues to double down on the idea that he gets to tell us what to do, changing at the drop of a hat. And I am so very tired of it all.

And the establishment, which is VERY good at propaganda, including Abbott, tells us that we are selfish and uncaring if we refuse to wear masks, now. (Even though at the beginning of this scare, they told us masks really don’t work and may actually be harmful.) They tell us that we are threatening old people and vulnerable people by not wearing masks. They say, “What’s the big deal for the small inconvenience of wearing a mask if you might save a life?” And, there are so many constitutional violations, why are you choosing this place to draw a line in the sand? Friends who profess to be for liberty tell me that it is bad optics to take a stand on masks, playing into the progressives’ hand, further alienating liberty advocates from the majority of the public.

And after doing that gut check . . . . sorry I don’t buy it. I think resistance to the dictatorial regime we are living under is vital in protecting liberty in the future.

You see, we KNOW that for progressives and other totalitarians who want to rule our lives, the issues are NEVER the issues. THE issue is always more power for them over our lives.

There are two burning essences for progressives. First, they really, really want you to know that they are caring, good people, and they are NOT whatever is defined today (not yesterday) as a bad person. It is even better for their psyche if they can have us know that they are good while getting to show that we are really bad. Second, they really, really want to force other people to bend to their will – through psychological, sociopathic manipulation if possible, but brute force is just fine, too.

I am very aware that reason and logic and science will not persuade those that want to rule us, or persuade the gullible who have been following the progressive pied-pipers on every assault on liberty and common sense that they decide to launch. That is one reason why I am not persuaded that staying silent on masks will make those followers any more amenable to liberty in the future.

But I make my decisions on reason and logic and science and principles derived therefrom. And all of that tells me that this is the issue. This is the time. This is the place to take a stand.

THE LEGAL CASE

Since this is a group dedicated to rule of law and preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitutions of Texas and the U.S., let’s start with the constitutional arguments why this mask mandate by the governor is wrong:

1) Separation of powers – Article 2, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution says that only the legislature can establish acts for which punishment is due. When the governor does it, he is violating the Constitution and a fundamental structural protection against dictatorship. We are seeing the impact of perpetual, mercurial, arbitrary, irrational, unequally applied edicts as they whipsaw businesses in Texas, devastating life-savings and dreams, livelihoods, employment, and the Texas miracle that was based on the predictability of rule of law.

2) Due course of law – both the lockdowns and mask mandates contain within them an assumption that apparently healthy people are guilty of being threats to others. People are being punished – not for threatening the immune-compromised lives which is the justification for the stated “crime” – but for engaging in normal life. This presumption of guilt without even the chance to prove innocence from hurting anybody is a fundamental violation of due course of law.

The executive orders with penalties for the general public are also not authorized by the Texas Disaster Act as the governor claims.

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE

The governor claimed in his video announcing the mandate that he has scientific studies to back up his claim that masks help slow the spread of disease. I have not seen such. I have seen a video of a scientist who claims to have reviewed all of the studies on this subject, and that NONE of the properly designed, controlled studies showed any statistical evidence of helping.

Certainly, I have seen no study that says that if an immune-compromised individual (or a person who lives with them) wears an effective mask, such as an N-95 mask, that there is any benefit whatsoever to forcing or shaming apparently healthy people into wearing masks, too. Why do we have to shame or force people into “protecting the vulnerable” when the vulnerable and those close to the vulnerable can protect themselves?

The governor claims he had to get drastic again because of the surge in reported cases of COVID-19 in Texas, and that spare hospital capacity is getting low. But I heard a report on the Michael Barry show this evening from a well-placed executive of a Texas hospital system who claims that he sees nothing alarming in the numbers we are seeing.

First, the surge in positive cases is coming from increasing testing and coming primarily from people in their thirties. When they get tests, usually driven by their employers telling them to get them, and they show up positive, their cases are very mild and they are recovering quickly. This is what Is called the development of herd immunity. (And by the way, as a member of this group points out, if you discredit the idea that immunity will last, you discredit the need or efficacy of vaccines.)

I literally laughed out loud when I heard the governor’s speech this afternoon trying to scare young people about the spread. He said something like, with this rapid spread you are going to get it, even if you are asymptomatic. Having something that has no symptoms is something to be feared? To quote Outlaw Josey Wales’s movie commander, “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it is raining!”

As to hospitalizations, everyone knows that the federal government is paying hospitals more if they classify cases as COVID-19. (This is also causing reported COVID deaths to be higher than actual.) We know that the governor’s dictates in the early stages of the scare that non-COVID “elective surgery” be put on hold, that there is a backlog of people needing treatment from health service providers. Who knows how many people died from providing COVID-19 privilege to some and making second class citizens of those with other diseases. Certainly the effects of the governor getting in between the patients and their doctors earlier this year is still being felt in our health care system. And the nature of the demand for COVID-19 treatment is very different with the current, younger, healthier population with the disease than it was for the older patients who initially were hospitalized.

The experts closest to the situation do not see the numbers the way the governor does. The death rates are more and more looking MUCH lower than initially projected. The fear-mongering of the government and the establishment just won’t hunt, anymore.

And, one other thing, the more we slow the development of herd immunity, the longer those who would rule us think they get to run our lives.

No more. Enough Is enough!

PRECEDENTS

See, this group knows that the lockdowns and the mask mandates are just lining us up for ever more intrusive (and lucrative for the cronies) dictates to come. Mandatory, risky vaccines. Mandatory electronic proof of vaccination to do anything. And who knows how much more of the rollout of the technological tools for the implementation of the police state are coming.

Our framers knew that a stitch in time saves nine. They knew that the time to stop dictators is early in the game, not later. It always is easier sooner, and harder and more costly later.

SOCIAL PRESSURE

Flip any virtue signaling directed at us on its face. It is selfish to try to use the force of government to change other people’s behavior, especially when all the protective measures being urged on us can be used by those who are at risk to effectively protect themselves. And it is selfish to try to demonize others to make yourself feel good.

There is no logic in telling others that they must have their liberty restricted so that someone else’s liberty can be expanded.

Recognize that social science says that only about one-sixth of the population thinks and acts on their own judgment. Everyone else is some kind of follower. Let us in this group be the leaders that others follow, not ones who cower in fear that someone will think poorly of us.

To those who mock us, saying we are making a big deal over something minor, ask why they are making such a big deal of it, then. Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.

STRATEGY

So, I will continue to do everything I can to resist these dictatorial edicts by Texas elected officials. I am working on building on a network of attorneys who understand the constitutional and legal issues and are willing to file more lawsuits or to defend those who get cited while resisting.

If you resist, ask for a jury trial, and make the case that these citations are not law, and are therefore null and void and should be treated as such. Then find an attorney to help you appeal if you lose.

Continue or start letting your city, county officials know how you think. Let your state legislators know. We will be in January in a new legislative session soon enough where lots of this can be fixed if the legislators are motivated enough by public pressure.

If there is widespread resistance, those who would rule us cannot prevail. (And by the way, this is not civil disobedience. The governor is not our daddy or master, and we are not bound to obey his edicts. This is real resistance. Resistance to tyranny.

Finally, I hope the meme I created is understandable. It takes the classic Come and Take it Flag, replacing the cannon with a man and a woman with bare faces. It is meant as a quintessentially Texas defiance to others who have the mistaken notion that they have the authority to tell us what to do.