Dear Vice President Pence:

I urge you to read and adopt the constitutional understanding urged in Gohmert v. Pence in the count of the elector votes on January 6.

I know it would be easier for you to take the actions that are within your plenary constitutional power and duty if the federal judiciary issued an opinion in agreement with the reasoning in the filings of the plaintiffs in Gohmert v. Pence, but your oath is to your best understanding of the text of the document and intent of the framers, not what others, even a court, tell you it means.

To save the Constitution, the Union, rule-of-law, the trust of the American people in our government, and liberty, I believe you have a constitutional duty to do the following on January 6:

1. When you are confronted with the choice of which envelope of electoral certificates you are to open and count from Arizona, you should declare that you find the election in Arizona was not conducted in the manner the Arizona legislature directed, and therefore there are no legitimate electors appointed from Arizona to count. (If the Arizona legislature self assembles and directly appoints the GOP electors who have already voted for Trump, you should declare that the Elector Clause in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires you to count the elector slate chosen by the legislature.)
2. If as the Electoral Count Act in Title 3 of the United States Code Section 15 directs, a written objection to your count is made by one or more House members and one or more Senators, you should rule the objection out of order because that section (3 U.S.C. 15) and section 5 is unconstitutional. (You can see the logic for that position in the filings of Gohmert v. Pence.  I will summarize that logic below.)
3. Because of the known facts of failure to comply with state election law in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, (and maybe other states, including the dueling elector New Mexico) the procedure used for Arizona should also be followed for them.
4. Note that the Twelfth Amendment sets the number of electoral votes to determine who wins as “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If you declare that an illegally conducted election appoints no one, then the electoral votes for the states who have conducted illegal and unconstitutional elections are not counted in the numbers needed to make a majority, and the majority of the states that did appoint electors will determine who becomes President and Vice President.

Here is a summary of the logic of the constitutional reasoning in Gohmert v. Pence by the plaintiffs:

1. The Electoral Count Act, Section 15 submits the dispute over the “count” of electoral votes to both the House of Representatives and to the Senate. The Twelfth Amendment does not delegate that power to Congress.  The Twelfth Amendment delegates the power to count to the President of the Senate alone.
2. The only role Congress plays in choosing the President under the Twelfth Amendment is when no one candidate receives a majority of the electors appointed. When that condition applies, it is the House that picks the President by state delegation.  Nowhere does the Constitution give any role in picking the President to the Senate.
3. The Electoral Count Act’s design to default in dueling elector controversies to that certified by the governor of a state is unconstitutional because the Elector Clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 2 gives plenary power to the state legislatures to make this decision. The Twelfth Amendment puts the decision on which of two dueling slates of electors, if any, to count squarely on you as President of the Senate.
4. The Electoral Count Act, as a procedural law for Congress, is unconstitutional because it is an attempt by one legislature to bind the legislative authority of its successors, a notion which centuries of law and the Constitution rejects.
5. The Electoral Count Act violates the Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 because it tries to cast a vote or resolution without presenting it to the President for approval.
6. By purporting to be a law that governs the procedure of the House and the Senate, the Electoral Count Act violates Article I, Section 5, clause 2 by interfering in each chamber’s plenary power to set their own rules of procedure.
7. The Electoral Count act violates the doctrines of non-delegation, separation-of-powers, and anti-entrenchment.

The happy situation here is that you, by acting according to your best understanding of your constitutional power and duty and the facts, have the power to save the very document you have sworn you will follow.

I am not the only one who has said that if the coup in progress is allowed to prevail, rule-of-law, our Constitutional Republic, potentially our Union, and our liberty will be greatly damaged, if not lost.  And restoring constitutional, limited government might not happen for generations.  Indeed, if the theft of the election is allowed to stand, we may enter that thousand years of darkness that Ronald Reagan talked about in his “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964.

I believe you to be a man guided by morality and principle.  It could be that you are hesitant to exercise your constitutional power to stop the coup because you know that it will be viewed by some as self-interested.  After all, if you do your constitutional duty, you will gain another term as Vice President.

Please understand that this is a decision based on principle – the principles of the Constitution and the principles that stealing is wrong and violating the individual, natural rights of the citizens of the United States is wrong.  The people you will be serving by following the Constitution are not only current citizens of the United States, accurately representing their true votes.  But you will also be serving millions if not billions of Americans and others around the world by preventing them from living miserable lives under tyranny. By exercising your constitutional duty, you will not be engaged in a selfish act, but a selfless one.

I will remind you that two Presidents of the Senate have exercised their plenary constitutional power to count disputed electors they thought most proper in our history.  One was Thomas Jefferson who counted electors that ultimately made a difference in him becoming President.  I am glad for America that he did.  It meant that we were free much longer than we otherwise would have been.

I have one alternative procedural path you may wish to take that may give the American people more information from which they can judge your decision in this matter.  Although I believe you put yourself in the best procedural posture for a correct count by following my first procedural point above, you may choose to use the debate that comes from Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act when a decision is counted and objected to, to educate the American people.

So, call this alternative 1A.  When Arizona comes up, note that there are two sets of electors and declare that it is your intent to count the electors certified by the governor (the Biden votes).  Then, at least one House and one Senate member will present an objection in writing to that count using the procedure in Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act.  This will split the two chambers apart for debate, where evidence of the coup can be presented to the American people, many of whom because of massive media and big tech censorship, will hear it for the first time.  After such evidence has been presented, you can sustain the objection and refuse to count any Arizona votes after seeing the evidence of how the election was not conducted in accordance with the manner directed by Arizona law.

If you choose alternative 1A, you still will have to declare the default provisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act to be unconstitutional and to declare that it is your decision to make about what votes, if any, to count under the Twelfth Amendment.

In addition to the filings in Gohmert v. Pence, I have read several other articles on this topic which may interest you.  Here is one at The Epoch Times by Peter Svab.  And another at American Thinker by Ted Noel.

Know that you are in our prayers as you make this momentous, historic decision.

Toward liberty,

Tom Glass
Hockley, Texas
President, Texas Constitutional Enforcement
www.txce.org

Click on this link to read the original filing in Gohmert v. Pence attempting to have two sections of the Electoral Count Act declared unconstitutional and to declare that the President of the Senate (Vice President Mike Pence) is the sole arbiter of what electoral votes are counted from contested states.

I consider it to be a beautiful and sound piece of legal and constitutional reasoning, well worth the time of any citizen interested in constitutional government.

The case has been assigned to Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle in the Tyler, Texas in the Eastern District Court, a Trump appointee.

The attorney who signed this complaint is William Lewis Sessions of the Dallas law firm of Sessions & Associates. If the name sounds familiar, he is the son of former FBI director fired by Bill Clinton, William S. Sessions.  He is also the brother of former Congressman and Congressman-elect Pete Sessions.

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

State Legislative Contact Information for Republicans in

 Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin

Pennsylvania (20 elector votes)

State Senate

*    President Pro Tempore

** Majority Leader

State House

*     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

State House

* Speaker of the House

Georgia  (16 electoral votes)

State Senate

State House

* Speaker of the House

Arizona (11 electoral votes)

State Senate

State House

Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)

State Senate

State House

* Speaker of the House

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.

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.

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

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.