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:
- 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.)
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
President, Texas Constitutional Enforcement