46 16 mins 10 mths

January 6 is the day we learn whether our Constitution will hold and whether congressional Republicans care.

The 2020 presidential election was, in several targeted battleground states, an unconstitutional electoral exercise. Even putting aside evidence of significant fraud, virtually none of which received a hearing by our courts, events leading up to and including the November national election constituted a radical and grave departure from the federal electoral system adopted by the framers of the Constitution and the state ratification conventions. Now, let’s be clear: None of this matters to the Democrat Party, since it and its surrogates perpetrated these unconstitutional acts, as I shall soon explain. Nor does it matter to the media, which is utterly illiterate on the subject and unequivocally supports the supposed outcome in any event. But it should be of great moment and concern to the people of this country and especially to congressional Republicans in both Houses, for if the latter do not at least confront and challenge this lawlessness on January 6, when Congress meets to count the electors, it will be the GOP’s undoing and, simultaneously, the undoing of our presidential electoral system. Ultimately, it will be the people of the United States who love our republic who will be the losers.

Win, lose, or draw, on January 6, the Republicans must not act as if “the people have spoken” and be cowered into passivity or worse, such as joining the Democrat Party and media hecklers, by insisting that they are part of a lawless party seeking to “reverse the results of the election.” Too many Republicans have already buckled, including the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Thune, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger. No doubt others who are unreliable and cowardly when facing the organized mob will follow. But let us not be judged by those who have intentionally and strategically manipulated our politics and the law to undermine our constitutional order. It is they who must be condemned.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the federal Constitution could not be more explicit. It states, in pertinent part: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …” This language was purposeful. During the Constitutional Convention, there were various proposals suggested for electing a president. Should the president be directly elected by the people? That proposal was rejected out of concern that such a purely democratic process could be hijacked by a temporary majority. Should the president be chosen in the first instance from within the national legislature? That proposal was also rejected on grounds of separation of powers. Should the judiciary play a role in the selection of the president? That idea was dispensed with as being the most objectionable, as judges were to be the least political of all public officials. The framers deliberatively and with much thought created the Electoral College process, in which the people and their elected legislatures — both state and national — would play important roles. But the electoral process rested first and foremost on the state legislatures directing how the electors would be chosen. The reason: While rejecting the direct election of a president, the framers concluded that the state legislatures were closest to the people in their respective states and would be the best representatives of their interests. At no time did the framers even raise the possibility that governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state, election boards, administrators, etc., would play any significant role in the electoral process. Indeed, certain of those offices did not even exist. Moreover, as I said, the courts were rejected out of hand. Thus, such an important power was to be exercised exclusively by the state legislatures.

 

After the 2016 election, the Democrat Party, its various surrogate groups, and eventually the Biden campaign unleashed hundreds of lawsuits and an unrelenting lobbying campaign in key states that had previously been won by President Trump, taking unconstitutional measures intended to stop President Trump from winning these states in the 2020 election, thereby literally undoing this critical constitutional provision. What had been carefully crafted at the Constitutional Convention and clearly spelled out in the Constitution was the main obstacle to defeating President Trump and winning virtually all future presidential elections. The problem for the Democrats was that in several of these battleground states, the Republicans controlled the legislatures, while the Democrats controlled state executive offices. The Constitution was not on their side. Therefore, they used the two branches of government that were to have no role in directing the appointment of electors to eviscerate the role of the Republican legislatures.

In Pennsylvania, considered the battleground of the battleground states, the Democrat governor, attorney general, and secretary of state made and enforced multiple changes to the state’s voting procedures, all of which were intended to assist the Democrats and Biden. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose seven justices are elected, has a 5-2 Democrat majority. (In 2018, there was a big push by the Democrat Party to fill three of the seats with Democrats, and it succeeded.) Just months before the general election, that court rewrote the state election laws to eliminate signature requirements or signature matching, eliminate postal markings that were intended to ensure votes were timely, and extended the counting of mail-in ballots to Friday at 5:00 p.m. (state law had a hard date and time — election day on Tuesday, which ended at 8:00 p.m. ET), thereby fundamentally altering Pennsylvania’s election laws and nullifying the federal constitutional role of the Republican legislature.

In Michigan, among other things, the Democrat secretary of state unilaterally changed the state’s election laws with respect to absentee ballot applications and signature verification. Indeed, she sent unsolicited absentee ballot applications by mail prior to the primary and general elections. State law required would-be voters to request such ballots. She intentionally circumvented the Republican state legislature and violated the federal Constitution by issuing over 7 million unsolicited ballots. Furthermore, a court of claims judge, appointed by a Democrat, ordered clerks to accept ballots postmarked by Nov. 2 and received within 14 days of the election, the deadline for results to be certified. The ballots would be counted as provisional ballots. The state legislature had no role in these changes.

In Wisconsin, the Elections Commission and local Democrat officials in the state’s largest cities, including Milwaukee and Madison, changed the state’s election laws. Among other things, they placed hundreds of unmanned drop boxes in strategic locations in direct violation of state law. Not surprisingly, the locations were intended to be most convenient to Democrat voters. In addition, they told would-be voters how to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements. These bureaucrats and local officials bypassed the Republican legislature in altering state election procedures.

In Georgia, the secretary of state is a Republican. Regardless, as explained in the Texas lawsuit brought against Georgia and the three other states mentioned above, “on March 6, 2020, in Democratic Party of Georgia v. Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State entered a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Release with the Democratic Party of Georgia to materially change the statutory requirements for reviewing signatures on absentee ballot envelopes to confirm the voter’s identity by making it far more difficult to challenge defective signatures beyond the 22 express mandatory procedures set forth at GA. CODE § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B). 71. Among other things, before a ballot could be rejected, the Settlement required a registrar who found a defective signature to now seek a review by two other registrars, and only if a majority of the registrars agreed that the signature was defective could the ballot be rejected but not before all three registrars’ names were written on the ballot envelope along with the reason for the rejection. These cumbersome procedures are in direct conflict with Georgia’s statutory requirements, as is the Settlement’s requirement that notice be provided by telephone (i.e., not in writing) if a telephone number is available. Finally, the Settlement purports to require State election officials to consider issuing guidance and training materials drafted by an expert retained by the Democratic Party of Georgia.” Georgia’s Republican legislature had no role in these electoral changes resulting from consent decree.

Consequently, in each of these four battleground states — and there were others — whether through executive fiats or litigation, key, if not core, aspects of state election laws were fundamentally altered in contravention of the explicit power granted to the state legislatures and, therefore, in violation of the federal Constitution and the process set forth for directing the selection of electors. And this is before we even get to the issue of voter fraud. That said, in many instances, ballots that would have been rejected or, if counted, evidence of fraud, were now said to be legal — not by state legislatures but by those who unilaterally changed the election laws.

The United States Supreme Court had an opportunity before the election, and in this general election cycle, to make clear to the states that they must comply with the plain language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Indeed, when a federal district judge in Michigan altered that state’s election laws, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned his order. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the state legislature writes election laws. However, when a case was brought to the Court involving the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s interference in state election laws, the U.S. Supreme Court was paralyzed. Chief Justice Roberts attempted to distinguish between federal and state courts, which is irrelevant; in another instance, Justice Alito ordered the Pennsylvania secretary of state, not once but twice, to segregate certain mail-in ballots, but nothing came of it. A court divided against itself cannot stand, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln. Its failure to enforce the Constitution (and by that I don’t mean make law or intervene in legitimate state election decisions) has contributed mightily to our current plight.

Despite what has been reported and repeated, the president is not actually or officially chosen on Election Day. The president is not chosen upon the certification of electors by the states. The process ends in Congress. And on Jan. 6, Congress — following both the Constitution and its own procedural law — makes the final decision on who is to be president and vice president of the United States. Of course, in every election in my lifetime, up to now, while there have been some controversies, the process has proceeded without much attention. But this time is different, as it must be. The Democrat Party, its surrogates, and eventually the Biden campaign instituted an unprecedented legal and lobbying campaign, mostly under the radar, as it was not well covered by the usual media outlets, to undermine our Constitution, the Republican state legislatures, and the Trump re-election campaign, in favor of Biden. In other words, the Constitution’s electoral process for choosing electors and ultimately the president and vice president was systematically and strategically attacked. It is now left to Congress, or at least the Republicans in Congress, to confront this. The Democrat Party has done severe damage to the nation’s electoral system, to the point where the state legislatures are now in the position of having the least input on the manner in which elections are held and federal electors are chosen — the complete opposite of what the Constitution compels and the framers unequivocally intended. And the legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia have, in a variety of ways, objected to what’s occurred, underscoring the seriousness of the problem.

If this outcome is allowed to stand without a fight on Jan. 6, it is difficult to see how this can be fixed. The Democrats will view this as a sure sign that they are free to do more and even worse. It will become extremely difficult for Republicans to win nationwide elections (something the ten or so GOP senators who wish to run for president should keep in mind). It will also become increasingly difficult to win a Republican majority in the Senate. And the 2020 constitutional violations will be used as a baseline for even more unconstitutional manipulations of the electoral system. The Democrat Party’s goal is to turn the nation’s electoral system into the one-party rule that exists in virtually all blue states, especially California with its supermajorities.

As I said earlier, win, lose, or draw, the congressional Republicans must act. It is the Democrats and their media who seek to undo election results by undoing the election system. Look at what they did in 2016 (need I remind everyone of the relentless assault against candidate and then President Trump?) and now 2020. And they have every intention, as they have boldly proclaimed, to further undermine our constitutional system should they win the Senate majority in a few days — by eliminating the filibuster and any ability to slow their radical legislative agenda; packing the Supreme Court with left-wing ideologues; and packing the Senate with four more Democrats from Puerto Rico and D.C. And that’s just for starters. This is the same party that did not care that it had no hope of removing President Trump in the Senate, but impeached him anyway — on the most specious of grounds. They are playing for keeps and destroying our constitutional system, for which they have little regard. I am well aware that it takes a majority of both Houses to send the election of the president to the House of Representatives, where each delegation gets one vote, an extremely difficult hurdle.

Nonetheless, it is not asking too much for the Republicans to uphold the United States Constitution — which they all took an oath to do — and to fight to preserve and protect the plain words set forth in Article II. They must make the case to and on behalf of the American people. And they must make it clear to the Democrats that we, the people, who believe in this Republic, will not roll over! Now, let’s see how many statesmen there are among Republican members of Congress.

Mark Levin is the host of LevinTV on BlazeTV.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

46 thoughts on “Educate Yourself

  1. What a load of… well to be polite, codswallop

    Right from the first paragraph its total nonsense

    Why has no court had a trial on voter fraud? Because in 59 lawsuits, voter fraud has never been alleged

    Thats right even the Kraken was complete and utter nonsense and nothing about voter fraud

  2. Anybody who repeatedly and condescendingly titles posts: ‘educate yourself’, really isn’t worth your time to read them.

  3. true, i all this nonsense is like Trunks desire to continually draw attention to himself, that is the primary driver DaveA . The bizarre the meltdown and crazy stuff, the more like it
    They’ve flipped smart with stupid, no way back .. !!!

  4. Shouldn’t this be addressed to the US judicial system at various levels rather than generally non USers on an obscure political blog?

    If Levin’s such a great legal brain why doesn’t he file for review of the lawsuits that have been lost?

  5. Because there’s more money in yelling at the mic for the entertainment of low information listeners

  6. Mark Levin’s firm Landmark Legal is involved in the case at the Supreme Court level Paul with the Presidents team.

    This letter was sent out as educational information to counter the disinformation that you all have bought hook line and sinker…. so educate yourself……

  7. This is the genius who said that the government shouldn’t address the health care problem, and that it wasn’t necessary for the problem to be solved in the first place. A view that you actually endorsed.

    Wow, what a mastermind.

  8. Mark Levin’s firm Landmark Legal is involved in the case at the Supreme Court level Paul with the Presidents team

    How many cases thus far has the ‘Presidents team’ won?

    If there’s a legal discrepancy in the cases lost why hasn’t Levin filed for a review?

  9. The Presidents team hasn’t won or lost a single case.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That’s the sound that was made when they were laughed out of court.

  10. Well Paul he might be technically correct, they may never have lost because they were never adjudicated they were just dismissed out of hand

  11. Ok list the cases so I can laugh at you…….

    You are so uninformed that you believe the President has lost over 20 cases…. the Presidents Team has only filed 6 cases and not one of them had a hearing.

    The only hearing the Trump team was able to present any witnesses or evidence to was one legislative hearing.

    but you didn’t know that did you?

  12. It’s not a dance, it’s an understanding of the american court system that you do not have.

    A hearing that never is allowed to get to the Presentation stage, let alone the evidentiary stage is not a hearing Paul.

    The over 20 cases dismissed has been drummed by Peter, Noel, Kurt, sorry if you have not been part of that group.

    There are about 15 different groups and organizations filing suits all over the country none of them are the Presidents team and everytime one of these groups loses it’s printed in the press that the president lost when it has nothing to do with the 3 Primary cases his Team were actually working on.

  13. You’re talking balls. If an allegation is presented to the court and gets judicially dismissed by a lawfully appointed Judge it has no merit in law and has failed.

    But hey, continue to rail against reality and make things up as you go along, it’s fun.

    There are about 15 different groups and organizations filing suits all over the country none of them are the Presidents team

    Count how many times the compound noun ‘Trump Team’ is mentioned in the FT article above.

  14. The only hearing the Trump team was able to present any witnesses or evidence to was one legislative hearing.

    you do know they weren’t witnesses the were rumour mongers an fifth party he said/ she said bullshitters

  15. Has the President’s legal team or any other team involved officially or unofficially in any of these challenges had any fraud allegation accepted or proven in any court in the country ?

  16. Colm, look at the FT link above.

    The answer to your first clause is yes and the second is no.

  17. Paul McMahon, on December 31st, 2020 at 4:50 PM Said: Edit Comment
    You’re talking balls. If an allegation is presented to the court and gets judicially dismissed by a lawfully appointed Judge it has no merit in law and has failed.

    That’s just simply not true.

    you do know they weren’t witnesses the were rumour mongers an fifth party he said/ she said bullshitters

    No these were real witnesses ep, the Poll watcher with a court order to be allowed to watch was prevented from doing so by the Philadelphia Sheriffs live on camera, and there are 100s of first hand witnesses. As well as 1000s of pages of evidence all that have been refused to be heard by the courts and it has nothing to do with the validity of the evidence it’s all politics.

  18. That’s just simply not true

    Except it is. It has no merit in law and has failed.

    As well as 1000s of pages of evidence all that have been refused to be heard by the courts

    Hearsay and gossip aren’t given evidential weight. Personal testimony depends on evidential corraboration.

    If Levin is such a legal giant why hasn’t he filed for them to be reviewed?

  19. Colm, on December 31st, 2020 at 5:26 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Has the President’s legal team or any other team involved officially or unofficially in any of these challenges had any fraud allegation accepted or proven in any court in the country ?

    That’s a broad sweep, there have been both by some of the ancillary groups, but Trumps Team has not been able to present it’s case in a single court.

  20. If Trump’s team had a case then they would have been able to present it. The dismissal of the cases show Trump had no case.

  21. Paul when you make a statement like that you set yourself up. The fact that a case doesn’t get heard has nothing to do with whether or not it has merit.

    Judges in the US are a power unto themselves, they can rule any way they want it does not have to be based in the Law. The only recourse is Appeal. It is one of the main bitches by the conservatives. It is why Trumps appointment of 300 Judges to the Bench was so important.

  22. Yes, and the Trump judges on the Supreme Court told him to take a walk and to stop wasting their time.

  23. But Trumps Team has not been able to present it’s case in a single court.

    Count how many times the compound noun ‘Trump Team’ is mentioned in the FT article above.

    The thing is with the TT is that Rudy is savvy enough not to repeat his allegations of voter fraud under oath, rather they use cultist patsies as proxies.

  24. “It is why Trumps appointment of 300 Judges to the Bench was so important.”

    So that far-right judges can be a law onto themselves?

  25. Paul when you make a statement like that you set yourself up. The fact that a case doesn’t get heard has nothing to do with whether or not it has merit.

    Yes it does. The Judge examines the case presented and judges whether it’s legally meritorious or not.

    Judges in the US are a power unto themselves, they can rule any way they want it does not have to be based in the Law.

    That’s the legal system that you supposedly adhere to, yes?

  26. Of course Judges aren’t allowed to rule on any basis but the law. Of course if a case isn’t even heard it’s because there is not enough merit to warrant a hearing. Of course the attempts to prove substantial game changing fraud has been a spectacular failure. All else claimed here by Patrick is just his opinion, it isn’t fact.

  27. “January 6 is the day we learn whether our Constitution will hold and whether congressional Republicans care.”

    Either the Republicans will accept the demonstrated will of the people of they will attempt to overthrow the constitutional result of the election

  28. Phantom, on December 31st, 2020 at 5:42 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Yes, and the Trump judges on the Supreme Court told him to take a walk and to stop wasting their time.

    What the Supreme Court did was stupid. They could have held the hearing, heard the evidence, and then dismissed the case or ruled however they saw fit after the presentation of the evidence.

    Then this would be over, now because of that decision it will never be over. They left an open wound.

  29. Colm, on December 31st, 2020 at 6:04 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Of course Judges aren’t allowed to rule on any basis but the law. Of course if a case isn’t even heard it’s because there is not enough merit to warrant a hearing. Of course the attempts to prove substantial game changing fraud has been a spectacular failure. All else claimed here by Patrick is just his opinion, it isn’t fact.

    That’s just simple nonsense. A Judge can do whatever he wants based in Law or not. I give you the Flynn Judge as an example.

    The Prosecution dropped the Charges, the Judge said fine I’ll charge him myself.

    Now there is no Law to support that, there are Laws that actually prevent it. Yet the Judge did it anyway.

    Judges have almost unlimited authority to do what they want in their court room and the only avenue that there is to redress it is appeal, and 99% of the time it is the Judges actions that lead to and cause the appeal because they don’t follow the Law.

  30. What the Supreme Court did was stupid. They could have held the hearing, heard the evidence, and then dismissed the case or ruled however they saw fit after the presentation of the evidence.

    If they decided that the case wasn’t meritorious to be heard in the first instance such actions would have been a misuse of court time and resources.

    Then this would be over, now because of that decision, it will never be over. They left an open wound

    They followed the legal protocols and because you don’t like the decision you want to change the system.

  31. Judges in the US are a power unto themselves, they can rule any way they want it does not have to be based in the Law.

    That’s the legal system that you supposedly adhere to, yes?

    Yes and I understand how it works, you are obviously not familiar with it.

  32. Yes and I understand how it works

    Do you understand how it works better than Federal Judges? Then back up your allegations above with evidence.

  33. If they decided that the case wasn’t meritorious to be heard in the first instance such actions would have been a misuse of court time and resources.

    Then this would be over, now because of that decision, it will never be over. They left an open wound

    They followed the legal protocols and because you don’t like the decision you want to change the system.

    No, this is a political case that has much deeper effect than a single case.

    The only court that can settle the issue to finality is the Supreme court. By refusing to hear it they didn’t break any law, but they left a festering wound that will have consequences far beyond just the case.

    What they did was pure politics and totally irresponsible. Hear it and dismiss it.

  34. The evidence is everywhere Paul except the NYTs, WaPo, and the BBC so you won’t even follow the links.

  35. No, this is a political case that has much deeper effect than a single case

    The only court that can settle the issue to finality is the Supreme court. By refusing to hear it they didn’t break any law, but they left a festering wound that will have consequences far beyond just the case.

    What they did was pure politics and totally irresponsible. Hear it and dismiss it.

    Ah, the old Pete Moore ‘activist Judges’ gambit.

    As per usual, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. You’re talking balls.

    The evidence is everywhere Paul except the NYTs, WaPo, and the BBC so you won’t even follow the links

    It certainly wasn’t in the courts anyway. Hearsay and gossip are given no evidential weight.

  36. Patrick

    They heard it and dismissed it. They decided it didn’t merit a full court hearing. Whatever was presented to them was too trivial to waste time on.

  37. You’re wasting your time, PVR. Some people – as we see on this thread – have a reflexive aversion to learning and education.

  38. You’re wasting your time, PVR

    Trying to spin this old bollocks as reality, he certainly is.

  39. Patrick

    I actually read through Levin’s entire post. He makes some interesting legal points about how the swing states changed their voting rules in questionable ways. But he does not explain how that should lead to those results being overturned in favour of Trump. Unlike Trump, he does not assert that Trump actually won those states on votes cast and counted. And he reveals his total partisan bias in the second last paragraph. He seems to think that there were no grounds for impeachment because it was a foregone conclusion that Trump would be acquitted by the senate. But he had no problem with Clinton’s impeachment when the same outcome was certain.

    “And they have every intention, as they have boldly proclaimed, to further undermine our constitutional system should they win the Senate majority in a few days — by eliminating the filibuster and any ability to slow their radical legislative agenda; packing the Supreme Court with left-wing ideologues; and packing the Senate with four more Democrats from Puerto Rico and D.C. And that’s just for starters. This is the same party that did not care that it had no hope of removing President Trump in the Senate, but impeached him anyway — on the most specious of grounds.”

  40. Peter
    Happy New Year and thank you.

    He makes some interesting legal points about how the swing states changed their voting rules in questionable ways. But he does not explain how that should lead to those results being overturned in favour of Trump. Unlike Trump

    Because his argument isn’t to give the election to Trump. His argument is those states violated the Constitution and in doing so rendered the votes cast by the people invalid. Which throws the Vote to the State Legislature. Not to Trump or Biden.

    He seems to think that there were no grounds for impeachment because it was a foregone conclusion that Trump would be acquitted by the senate. But he had no problem with Clinton’s impeachment when the same outcome was certain.

    The Same outcome wasn’t guaranteed. There were 2 major differences. The Republicans during Clintons Impeachment controlled both the House and the Senate, and Bill Clinton actually had 11 criminal charges against him. Where with Trump the Congress was split, and Mueller gave them no charges at all to work with.

Comments are closed.