On Monday the Republican Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, betrayed his state and the country by rushing through a certification of election results, while there are numerous lawsuits in the state court, and at the exact same time an Arizona Poll Worker was testifying in a massive and very long hearing with Arizona state Representatives hearing presentations on all types of voter fraud and election integrity problems in their state.
But that doesn’t mean that the fight is over in Arizona. Trump is still ready to fight about it.
President Donald J.Trump’s attorney made the announcement about certification, on Twitter:
Ducey bragged on Twitter as an afront to the people who had gathered to voice their concerns, and to the legislators were hearing testimony out of respect for their voters, who they said wanted them at the hearing with the legal team of Trump’s.
Giuliani said when announcing the move by ducey to the hearing said: “We are not guided by your Governor, SecretaryofState, Joe Biden, or the media, we’re guided by the Constitution…..”
Elli, at the hearing, presented Constitutional proof that State legislators have a path to taking the power away from the Secretary of State to choose electors. She posted that the fight was still on.
The case that Ellis encourages people to read through to understand her point of view.
From a 2012 artcie at FairVote.org on the case:
In McPherson v. Blacker, the petitioners’ argument rests on the claim that the duty to “appoint” and the duty to “direct” the manner of appointment are two separate powers: the latter assigned to the legislature by the Constitution and the former to a distinctive body called the “State,” meaning the “political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” 146 U.S. at 24 (quoting Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 721).
The Court accepts (or at least does not contradict) the Texas v. White definition of “State.” But far from construing Art. II, Sec. 1 as assigning two separate powers to two separate entities, the Court said that the State acts through its legislature to appoint presidential electors. This interpretation of the decision is supported by the passage:
“The State does not act by its people in their collective capacity, but through such political agencies as are duly constituted and established. The legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State, and the sovereignty of the people is exercised through their representatives in the legislature unless by the fundamental law power is elsewhere reposed. . . . What is forbidden or required to be done by a State is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist.” 146 U.S. at 25 (emphasis added).
The Court viewed the legislature and the State as interchangeable, unless the power or duty is expressly committed to another political agency of the state, or directly to the citizens of the state. This is further supported by the rest of the passage:
“The clause under consideration [Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1] does not read that the people or the citizens shall appoint, but that ‘each State shall’; and if the words ‘in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,’ had been omitted, it would seem that the legislative power of appointment could not have been successfully questioned in the absence of any provision in the state constitution in that regard. Hence the insertion of those words, while operating as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power, cannot be held to operate as a limitation on that power itself.” 146 U.S. 25 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Justice Fuller concluded the historical discussion by saying “the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the State under the Constitution of the United States.” 124 U.S. at 35. If the Court believed that the two powers belong to separate entities – that the power to appoint belongs to the State and power to direct belongs to the legislature – it could have said as much, but it never did. In fact, McPherson supports the argument that there is a presumption that the powers of a State reside with its legislature. So when the legislature acts, that in itself is an exercise of the sovereignty of the people, i.e., the State.
VIDEO OF THE DAYIdiots Twerk On Ambulance After Shooting In Oakland, CA
Opponents might try to make the distinction between State and legislature with the McPherson quote that “the act of appointment is none the less the act of the State in its entirety because arrived at by districts, for the act is the act of political agencies duly authorized to speak for the State, and the combined result is the expression of the voice of the State, a result reached by direction of the legislature, to whom the whole subject is committed.” 146 U.S. 29.
But even here the point is that the congressional districts are “duly authorized to speak for the State” by the legislature, not that they themselves are necessarily political agencies of the state. Similarly, under the NPV compact, it is the legislatures of the individual states authorizing that the national popular vote total will determine the appointment of electors. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), supported the proposition in McPherson, stating that “the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary. . . .”
Kari is an ex-Community Organizer who writes about Voter Engagement, Cultural Marxism and Campaigns. She has been a grassroots volunteer with the GOP, on and off for 18 years. She is a Homeschool Mom in North Carolina and loves Photojournalism and Citizen Journalism. @Saorsa1776