AZ Senate President Fann: "We do not have the constitutional authority to recall the electors. We will turn it over to congress."

Yeah this isn't so much about force of arms at this point.

It's about getting organized and doing everything you can on as large a scale as you can to find ways to decouple from interfacing with and funding the government any more than you absolutely have to.

One man may not be able to do shit in the way of this but imagine if suddenly there were small towns various places where everyone did every bit of business they could in cash and off the books. Where their police department just stopped answering calls from and making calls to the feds. Hell, where if the feds or even state police show up in town they mysteriously find the police station city hall and anywhere they try to get gas etc closed and empty.

This is how whole continents like south America work already, there's no reason we can't do it.

It's Time to get creative and embrace the true spirit of our forefathers the glorious gun running, smuggling, tax evading, law breaking, and government ignoring outlaws that they were!

The 13 colonies were very much a pirate culture back in those days. People only paid taxes on anything they absolutely couldn't avoid not paying taxes on. They also just flat refused to depend on or let the government MAKE THEM dependent!

Ideally we'd be doing this at state level by defederalizing state guards and informing federal law enforcement they were no longer welcome to operate inside our states.

If we can't do it at the state level yet, then maybe we can start at the county, city, or suburb level.

There's a whole lot of people in this thread who seem very interested in making us feel like we have no cards to play. They are wrong.

Let them come.

Righteousness is an subjective term. Stalin felt he was righteous. Hitler. Charles Manson as well. The rape and pillage by the nights Templars crusades across the globe was seen as divine righteousness.
This is a terrible argument to make as it makes absolutely no sense. Anyone can feel justified in what they do and nobody can say they are wrong.

You should really think shit out before you make nonsensical comments

Just because you quote some leftist wackjob does not make it a fact.

Above hilighted. So, AZ legislative critters acting as bad as TX ones. Refusing to do the job that they were elected to do.

Got it!

Last Edited by Deplorable Zenobia on 07/18/2021 06:22 PM

1776

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This was an illegal act in 1776 according to British law.

Dual citizens are foreign enemies

Vitiated is the word also check out the insurrection act

Stolen Elections Have Consequences..

And Pence claimed he didn't have constitutional authority to demand an investigation of the eligibility of any states' electors.

And I don't see where Congress has that authority explicitly either.

So NOBODY has the authority to do anything. The difference is, the Dems do what they want, and the Reps keep waiting for permission.

Guess who wins under those rules?

what the fuck?

Does the Arizona constitution say that?

And evil won the War of 1861-65.
The Yankee system is what you have, corruption and slaughter.
Still worship Lincoln?

Yes, because they're retarded. And states cannot recall electors AFTER they've cast their electoral votes and they've been counted and accepted by Congress. You know, the thing on the 6th where all the Trumptards/Qtards tried to stop things?

Yes, it is over. It has been over for a long time. But they don't call them Trumptards for nothing. #twoweeks

like Q said military only path

Announce?
Do you mean renounce?
I am a Confederate, a citizen of the South.
A Real American.
I will never renounce that.
But you, a Yankee serf, will never understand that, the chains binding you mind will never allow it.

Honestly what did anyone expect.

US is the very definition of a Banana Republic.

Just for my own curiosity, where does it say that electors cannot be recalled?

IF AZ kicks the can to Congress, here are the main topics of interest:

Relevant Constitutional Provisions
The authority of Congress to legislate regarding these various issues in different types of elections would appear to derive principally from four constitutional provisions:

The Elections Clause

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U.S. Const. Article I, §4, cl. 1.

Day of Chusing Presidential Electors Clause

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the [Presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

U.S. Const. Article II, §1, cl. 4.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

. . . .

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

U.S. Const. XIV, §§1 & 5.

Fifteenth Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Const. XV, §§1 & 2.

Power as Regards Different Types of Elections
Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, the Constitution seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing procedures for elections. Federal authority to direct how states administer these regulations, however, is also provided for in the Constitution. Congress's power is at its most broad in the case of House elections, which have historically always been decided by a system of popular voting.13 Its power may be more limited in elections for Senators or President, and is at its narrowest as regards state elections.

House Elections
As noted above, Article I, Section 4, cl. 1 states that Congress may determine "the Times, Places and Manner" for such elections. The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted the above language to mean that Congress has extensive power to regulate most elements of a congressional election.

For instance, the Supreme Court has noted that the right to vote for Members of Congress is derived from the Constitution and that Congress therefore may legislate broadly under this provision to protect the integrity of this right.14 The Court has stated that the authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections:

embrace [the] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.... [Congress] has a general supervisory power over the whole subject.15

Consequently, it would appear that Congress has broad authority to further enhance its level of federal control over the administration of House election procedures.

Senate Elections
Unlike House elections, Senate elections were, until ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, decided by a vote of the state legislatures, not by popular vote. This helps explain why congressional power over Senate elections, while almost as broad as it is for House elections, contains one exception—that Congress may not regulate "the Places of chusing Senators." As originally implemented, this language would have limited the authority of Congress to designate where state legislatures would meet for such votes. This deference to the prerogatives of state legislatures would appear to be obsolete now that all Senate elections are decided by popular vote. However, nothing in the Seventeenth Amendment explicitly repealed this restriction, and the meaning of the clause could arguably apply to congressional regulation of sites for popular voting.

Arguably, if Congress attempted to establish legislation regulating where states must establish polling sites for Senate elections, such legislation might run afoul of textual limitations of this provision. On the other hand, for practical purposes, most states, if subjected to federal regulation for House elections establishing the location of polling places, would be likely to follow such directions for Senate elections occurring at the same time, if no other reason than administrative convenience.

Presidential Elections
The power of Congress to regulate presidential elections is not as clearly established as the power over House and Senate elections. First, the text of the Constitution provides a more limited power to Congress in these situations. Whereas Article I, Section 4, cl. 1 allows regulation of the "time, place and manner" of congressional elections, Article II, Section 1, cl. 4 provides only that Congress may determine the "time" of choosing presidential electors. Further, despite modern state practice providing for popular voting for electors, the appointment of presidential electors was historically and remains today a power of the state legislatures.16 Consequently, principles of federalism might incline the Supreme Court to find the appointment of presidential electors less amenable to federal regulation. The major exception to this would be congressional authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; these powers are addressed infra.

The case law on this issue is ambiguous, although Congress's regulatory authority over presidential elections does seem to be more extensive than it might appear based on the text of the Constitution. For instance, the Court has allowed congressional regulation of political committees which seek to influence presidential elections, arguing that such legislation is justified by the need to preserve the integrity of such elections. In Burroughs v. United States,17 the Supreme Court reasoned that

[w]hile presidential electors are not officers or agents of the federal government, they exercise federal functions under, and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by, the Constitution of the United States. The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated. To say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard such an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection. Congress, undoubtedly, possesses that power, as it possesses every other power essential to preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption.18

A question arises, however, whether Burroughs, which involves the regulation of third parties to elections, can be distinguished from the regulation of states directly regarding their administration of presidential elections. In Burroughs, the Court distinguished the legislation under consideration (regulation of political committees) from legislation more directly dealing with state appointment of electors, noting that

[t]he congressional act under review seeks to preserve the purity of presidential and vice presidential elections. Neither in purpose nor in effect does it interfere with the power of a state to appoint electors or the manner in which their appointment shall be made. It deals with political committees organized for the purpose of influencing elections in two or more states, and with branches or subsidiaries of national committees, and excludes from its operation state or local committees. Its operation, therefore, is confined to situations which, if not beyond the power of the state to deal with at all, are beyond its power to deal with adequately. It in no sense invades any exclusive state power.19

Under this language, procedures within the province of states, such as the allocation of electors by a state, would appear to fall outside of the doctrine established in Burroughs. Although the Court was not asked to evaluate whether Congress had the power to establish the manner in which the presidential electors were appointed, the language above would appear to indicate that the Court in Burroughs had not intended its decision to extend Congress's authority to regulate presidential elections so that it was coextensive with the power to regulate congressional elections.

Surprisingly, however, three U.S. Courts of Appeals, relying on Burroughs, reached precisely the opposite result. In upholding the validity of congressional regulation of registration procedures for federal elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Act),20 three federal circuits appeared to find that Congress had the same authority to regulate presidential elections as it did House and Senate elections.21 However, of the three opinions, two made only passing references to the issue, and only the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit) discussed it at any length. In ACORN v. Edgar, Chief Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit wrote that

Article I, section 4 [providing authority over congressional elections] ... makes no reference to the election of the President, which is by the electoral college rather than by the voters at the general election; general elections for President were not contemplated in 1787.... But these turn out not to be [a] serious omission[] so far as teasing out the modern meaning of Article I, section 4 is concerned. Article II provides [congressional authority over the Time of choosing Electors.] Article II, section 1 ... has been interpreted to grant Congress power over Presidential elections coextensive with that which Article I, section 4 grants it over congressional elections. Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934).22

It should be noted that the federal registration standards developed under Motor Voter could probably have been decided under Congress's power over congressional elections, so that the reasoning of these cases would not appear essential to their holdings. These broad holdings, however, do stand as some of the few modern interpretations of Article II, Section 1, cl. 4 and Burroughs.23 Those cases' interpretations, however, would appear to be at odds with the limiting language of Burroughs quoted previously.24

Resolution of this issue may ultimately be important to any determination of whether proposals to standardize election procedures could be specifically applied to presidential elections. Where congressional and presidential election procedures are likely to overlap, such as requirements for absentee balloting, uniform closing times, multiple-day elections, number and accessibility of polling stations, etc., regulation of congressional elections may be for practical purposes sufficient. However, where the issue at hand is unique to presidential elections (e.g., allocation of electors based on popular vote), the resolution of this issue may become essential.

Link:
[link to www.everycrsreport.com (secure)]

Never!

They don't arbitrarily, overthrow duly elected government. The military is disciplined and not a bunch of butt hurt losers.

The courts must first rule that somehow a government is illegitimate.

Perhaps in another 2 weeks!

lmao

That was Lincoln.

AZ HOUSE is mostly REP:

[link to www.azleg.gov (secure)]

LOL you are surprised? Wake up. You / We the people have to get dirty, bloody, dead at times, we and only we must rise up. You cant expect the corrupt government to do it lol.

Well 100’s of thousands of votes should not have been stolen/forged/taken fraudulently so there HAS to be recourse! That is ALL!

defacto state authority -- congress has no authority -- wouldn't senators be chosen on the same ballot as president?

Whoa!

Presidential elections can not be overturned, reversed, altered, etc. once the president is sworn in.

That is why each states certifies the elector votes. Jan 6th was the drop dead date!

THIS is why we have a 2nd amendment. Read the 2nd, 1st sentence. Let it sink in