American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Kenr6583
udonmap.com
Posts: 1974
Joined: July 13, 2019, 2:15 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Kenr6583 » January 8, 2022, 10:14 am

I find it interesting that if there were any legal standing to decertify the election, why hasn’t it been done? Aren’t all the states in question Republican controlled? Just more BS by Cholla.



User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 10:38 am

* * *

I find it interesting that the same people who do not read so good STILL do not read so good.
Therefore, each state Legislature has the power to recall electors and decertify their vote upon demonstrable proof of fraud.


Each state has their own process for this demonstration. Those who understand the workings of a federal republic know that there are differences from state to state in their own state constitutions. Those who are politically astute also know that there are people from both political parties who do not want the forensic audits and subsequent decertification processes to begin.


* * *

A legal opinion regarding the decertifying of an election by state legislatures and recalling electors.

This is a perfect example of the separation of powers and states’ rights as they apply in the 9th and 10th and 12th Amendments to the Constitution.

It should not come as any surprise that legal analysts, who appear as guests on CNN and MSNBC and in the New York Times and Washington Post (that conspired with a corrupt FBI and DOJ over the last 6 years) will claim that there is no legal remedy for decertifying an election. They base this on an idea that there is no enumerated power for the states to do it; but the reason it can and may be done is just the opposite. All powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and to the people. It is grounded in the 9th and 10th Amendments and that principle has been upheld in numerous federal court cases before 2022.


Can a State Legislature recall the state electors to decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election? The Answer is "Yes."

"Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the new general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors; but has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 380 (1890).

The United States Supreme Court opinions discussed herein are based on the overarching principles that the Constitution reserves to the national government only those expressly enumerated powers in Article I. All other powers not specifically reserved are delegated to the states and to the People. Indeed, "[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State." See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 848 (1995).

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment work in tandem to consecrate this broad delegation of power to the states. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. _____, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324-25 (2020) "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States fr om taking away presidential electors' voting discretion." Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee – and the state voters' choice – for President.

The Constitution is "barebones about electors." Id. As it should be. The residual powers are left to the states. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives. There are no restrictions or limitations.

The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. "Appointments and procedures and . . . that is all." Chiafolo, supra at 2315.

In prior cases, the Court has stated that Article II, §1's appointments power gives the States full authority over presidential electors , absent some other constitutional constraint. The Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination . . . " McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892). See also Chiafalo, supra at 2324.

It would be meaningless if after giving full authority to the States over presidential electors, the state legislature could not, upon a proper showing, recall those electors to decertify a fraudulent election. As the Supreme Court said in Chiafolo, supra, the State has full authority absent some other constitutional constraint.

As far as the national government (and Constitution) is concerned, i.e., federal law, there are no such constraints. "Congress . . . has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, supra at 380. Therefore, each state Legislature has the power to recall electors and decertify their vote upon demonstrable proof of fraud. Indeed, this is the only way the state can guarantee that the People are represented. The Federal Government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. 316 (1819). "[T]he powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," while those that belong to the States "remain . . . numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Thus, "[w]here the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power[,] that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication," the power is "either delegated to the state government or retained by the people." See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee , 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (stating that the Federal Government's powers under the Constitution must be "expressly given, or given by necessary implication").

For an added measure of assurance in the latter regard, it is declared that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." U.S. Const., amend. IX (emphasis added). It was universally agreed by the Framers that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. "The [Ninth] Amendment . . . was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834). See also II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891), pp. 626-627. As "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect . . . effect should be given to all the words it uses." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803). See also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 229 (1926). And, indeed, a right to political affiliation and political choice has been addressed as protected, at least in part, by this amendment. United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947). This includes, of course, the fundamental right to vote. Id. See also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560 (1964).

That the latter is the fundamental and primary right among all other fundamental rights, enumerated or not, is evident in the fact it is self-executing. Infringement upon it cannot occur under the Constitution if the government is, in fact, one that is duly and legally chosen by the People. Any government that asserts a mandate to rule on the basis of fraud or illegality effectuates an instant infringement on the sovereign's will, of necessity, has no legitimacy. It is as violent a usurpation as would be the direct use of force to suppress the People. Only, it is more sinister and insidious.

It is at once an uncontestable rejection of the values and ideals of the People and a silent assassination of their collective right to express them.

To countenance a fraudulent election is to deny the inherent sovereignty retained by the People to govern themselves.
To allow one such as this to pass as valid with the level of skullduggery and fraud evident to everyone who cares to look and who is not blinded by the conspired obfuscation foist upon them by bureaucratic functionaries, technocrats, subversives in both political parties, and their corporate and foreign donors, and those who control, to the great detriment of public debate and discourse, the information from social media all the way to the transmission of the "news" to households across the nation, is to leave the sovereign citizens of this country little choice. Ignoring this treasonous crime destroys any remnants of faith in the proper and orderly functioning of a government that is supposed to serve them.

If the choice of the People has been adulterated by fraud, they have a right, an obligation, and, indeed, a duty to call it out to ensure preservation of the Republic that is guaranteed to them by the Constitution; or indeed, to dissolve and abolish it altogether. The Declaration of Independence, Second Paragraph (July 4, 1776). Indeed, the Behringer Memo suggests that fraud must be ignored and the Republic destroyed if such fraud is not discovered prior to January 6. Such a conclusion ignores the principles of the Founders and precedent of federal law as described herein.

Preservation of the Republic can be done by legislative decertification under the principle of the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the broad discretion states have over electors. The state constitutions give broad authority to the People to recall all publicly elected officials. Of course, this extends to any public official charged with a duty to represent their will. And, this must be done, for under the Ninth Amendment, if the fundamental right to vote is to be protected, every illegally cast or counted vote must not be allowed to unconstitutionally disenfranchise the legal voter's fundamental, constitutional rights.

These rights that reside in the People are necessarily delegated to the state Legislature in the event that the latter must act sua sponte to correct a fraudulently held election. After all, the Legislature is the lawmaking authority in the state. Absent any restraints in the state or federal constitution, it must act in the stead of the people where there is no actuating power given to the People under state law. In other words, the Legislature itself does not have to pass a state law to exercise its constitutional (both state and federal) authority.

A legislature's determination to decertify the votes cast by the electors or to otherwise decertify an election on demonstration of fraud in the election itself is nothing more than the Legislature's use of its reserved sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment to protect those fundamental rights and privileges reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment.

Indeed, the failure to do so would be a violation of the Legislature's role as a co-equal branch of government.



* * *
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16077
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by jackspratt » January 8, 2022, 10:45 am

Posting an uncredited "opinion" a second time does not afford it any further credibility than the first time.

If I could be bothered, I am sure I could find at least one other "opinion" that comes to a contrary conclusion.
Last edited by jackspratt on January 8, 2022, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kenr6583
udonmap.com
Posts: 1974
Joined: July 13, 2019, 2:15 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Kenr6583 » January 8, 2022, 10:45 am

Just a “legal opinion” Cholla, it means nothing, that’s why it hasn’t been done.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 11:30 am

* * *

The source does not matter. Those who criticize the legal opinion do not matter. They can even provide their own opinion, but it is immaterial without anything to back up that opinion.

The legal opinion provided contains not only legal precedent, but constitutional remedies. THAT is what matters.

So blow it off with your objections over and over without anything of substance to back it up.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

ladda3904
udonmap.com
Posts: 196
Joined: July 10, 2006, 11:14 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by ladda3904 » January 8, 2022, 11:45 am

2 suggestions.
1. There should be a limit placed on the length of posts.
2. Theclan and Theteach need to get a hobby.

Kenr6583
udonmap.com
Posts: 1974
Joined: July 13, 2019, 2:15 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Kenr6583 » January 8, 2022, 11:49 am

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 11:30 am
* * *

The source does not matter. Those who criticize the legal opinion do not matter. They can even provide their own opinion, but it is immaterial without anything to back up that opinion.

The legal opinion provided contains not only legal precedent, but constitutional remedies. THAT is what matters.

So blow it off with your objections over and over without anything of substance to back it up.
LOL. How about you blow it off with the claim that a presidential election can be decertified, because once certified, it can’t be undone.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 12:01 pm

How about you blow it off with the claim that a presidential election can be decertified, because once certified, it can’t be undone.
Another claim with no supporting information (which you hardly ever provide in any post on any thread). I know. I scrolled through your past posts. But you can certainly have your "moderate conservative" opinion, Mr. Volstead. Weak, hollow noise is how I believe I have characterized your one or two sentence opinions in the past. Still true today. You are very consistent.
jackspratt wrote: Posting an uncredited "opinion" a second time does not afford it any further credibility than the first time.
Posting an opinion over and over again with nothing to back it up does not afford it any further credibility than the first time.

See what I did there?

That said, the "credibility" is in the content, not the source.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16077
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by jackspratt » January 8, 2022, 12:14 pm

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 12:01 pm

That said, the "credibility" is in the content, not the source.
I'll bear that in mind next time you blow off Wikipedia.

Which, of course, references its sources. ;)

Kenr6583
udonmap.com
Posts: 1974
Joined: July 13, 2019, 2:15 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Kenr6583 » January 8, 2022, 12:15 pm

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 12:01 pm
How about you blow it off with the claim that a presidential election can be decertified, because once certified, it can’t be undone.
Another claim with no supporting information (which you hardly ever provide in any post on any thread). I know. I scrolled through your past posts. But you can certainly have your "moderate conservative" opinion, Mr. Volstead. Weak, hollow noise is how I believe I have characterized your one or two sentence opinions in the past. Still true today. You are very consistent.
jackspratt wrote: Posting an uncredited "opinion" a second time does not afford it any further credibility than the first time.
Posting an opinion over and over again with nothing to back it up does not afford it any further credibility than the first time.

See what I did there?

That said, the "credibility" is in the content, not the source.
There there Cholla, everything is going to be ok. You are taking all of this way too serious. I’m flattered that you took the time to go back and read all my previous posts, didn’t realize I had infected you so bad.

I don’t need to write a whole page to share my point of view, but apparently you do. And truth be told, it’s all for nothing, because you are wrong, this past presidential election cannot and will not be decertified.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 12:38 pm

jackspratt wrote:
January 8, 2022, 12:14 pm
I'll bear that in mind next time you blow off Wikipedia.
What you need to keep in mind is that the co-founder is the one who said it cannot be trusted. I take him at his word. You do not have to believe him.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

Kenr6583
udonmap.com
Posts: 1974
Joined: July 13, 2019, 2:15 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Kenr6583 » January 8, 2022, 12:45 pm

Cholla will agree with anything that aligns with his agenda, true or false.

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16077
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by jackspratt » January 8, 2022, 1:13 pm

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 12:38 pm
jackspratt wrote:
January 8, 2022, 12:14 pm
I'll bear that in mind next time you blow off Wikipedia.
What you need to keep in mind is that the co-founder is the one who said it cannot be trusted. I take him at his word. You do not have to believe him.
Posting (Larry Sanger's) opinion (of Wikipedia) over and over again with nothing to back it up does not afford it any further credibility than the first time. ;)

User avatar
rick
udonmap.com
Posts: 3238
Joined: January 9, 2008, 10:36 am
Location: Udon, or UK May-August

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by rick » January 9, 2022, 10:59 pm

And Larry Sanger has tried to setup or work with about 4 other online encyclopedias, but keeps moving on. Obviously cannot find perfection.

Yes, Wikipedia can sometimes carry incorrect information - but it has the advantage that it can be continuously reviewed and corrected. Unfortunately i know of numerous books with incorrect information, but once published and distributed, cannot be easily corrected or withdrawn. Just because it is in one book, doesn't mean it is correct.

Still a far better source of information than obscure online journals and 'opinion' pieces.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 10, 2022, 7:54 pm

* * *

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmore ... s-n2601621
This State Is Defying Biden's OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Regardless Of What SCOTUS Decides

IOWA RISING - States' Rights
Iowa, one of 22 states with its own OSHA-approved plan that covers both private and government workers, submitted notice Friday that it will neither adopt nor enforce the vaccine mandate, which requires weekly testing and mask-wearing for all non-vaccinated employees.

Folks, THIS is how federalism is done!
Republicans at the local and state levels are creating Liberty Sanctuaries to protect their citizens from tyrannical overreach by the federal government.
Still, if blue states can defy federal drug and immigration laws during a GOP administration, it seems that red states should at the least be able to shield their citizens from federal tyranny.

Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, arguably second only to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in protecting the liberties of constituents during this pandemic, praised the decision as one that protects "the freedoms and liberties of Iowans."
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 12, 2022, 7:21 am

* * *



Dave Rubin, a white homosexual male raised in New York and late resident of California discusses his conversion to embracing conservative values and what Democrat Communists did to push him there. Rubin has since moved away from California and to Free Florida. Jason Whitlock, a Black heterosexual male raised in the South discusses why he has embraced conservatism early in his life and his common ground with Rubin.

In both cases, it has been the insanity of the Left that keeps them grounded in their decisions to continue to reject the Democrat Communists.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 18, 2022, 2:19 pm

* * *

https://justthenews.com/government/cour ... cases-find
Recent breakthroughs in 2020 election probes undercut narrative that legal avenues are exhausted
Out of 90 cases related to the 2020 presidential election, only 25 were decided on the merits, and 18 of those were won by Trump and/or the GOP party in the lawsuit.

In the 14 months since the election, abundant evidence of irregularities has emerged through audits, investigations, and court decisions — much of it surfacing within the past month.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

Doodoo
udonmap.com
Posts: 6904
Joined: October 15, 2017, 8:47 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Doodoo » January 18, 2022, 4:12 pm

Whoooopie!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Reply

Return to “U.S. Politics”