Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.

As explained in the introduction to this month’s Short Quiz, it covered material from the EXPIRED 12/16/2020 Topic Proposal prompted by the NYC Harvard Club’s impending 12/22/2020 Zoom webinar entitled “How To Strengthen and Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election” and featuring the nation’s foremost election-law expert, Prof. Richard H. Pildes of NYU School of Law (JD, Harvard Law School, 1983).

This suggested discussion outline covers both this month’s focus book “Our Broken Elections” and the Expired 12/16/2020 Proposal “How To Strengthen and Secure American Elections in the Wake of the 2020 Election.”


********************
Sec. A – Constitutional Basics

1. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states --

“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; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

2. HR-1 attempted takeover of all elections including Presidential --

[The philosophy is that federal law can dictate conditions for federal elections except Presidential (e.g., Congress, Senate) and states will find it too expensive to hold two elections in each cycle – one for President and one, a week or so before or after, for Congress, Senate, etc.]


********************
Sec. B – The U.S. Supreme Court’s “How To Steal An Election” Manual

1. The media lies about no evidence of election fraud --

[Of the 60 or so state-court cases brought by a variety of plaintiffs, all (or virtually all) were decided on procedural grounds such as being brought too early (“not ripe” in legalese), being brought too late (“laches” in legalese), being moot (the alleged improprieties in the particular lawsuit not being sufficient to overturn the entire national election), or lack of standing (no right for the particular plaintiff to complain). Accordingly, such cases simply did not consider the evidence of election fraud.]

2. Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that lawsuits between two or more states are within THE ORIGINAL JURISICTION of the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e., the Supreme Court acts as the trial court in such cases).

3. The Supreme Court decided in 1821 per its most-preeminent-ever Chief Justice (John Marshall) that the Supreme Court had “no right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given.”

4. 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1251(a) provides that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over lawsuits between states is exclusive – they can NOT sue each other in any other court.

5. Immediately after the 2020 election, Texas filed suit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- in which 18 additional states had joined as plaintiffs.

6. Texas offered to prove that ILLEGALITIES had resulted in STOLEN ELECTIONS in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.

7. The “Prayers for Relief” sought by the State of Texas included U.S. Supreme Court declarations that the Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin 2020 presidential elections violated the Constitution, that their unconstitutional elections cannot be used for appointing Electors, and that each of the four states would be authorized to conduct remedial elections -- which could have been accomplished before the scheduled 1/20/2021 Inauguration Day.

8. Pennsylvania was entitled to 20 Electors, Georgia to 16, Michigan to 16 and Wisconsin to 10. With the impending 306-232 vote, a switch of 38 votes would have changed the outcome in President Trump’s favor. Accordingly, if the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered remedial elections in all 4 states, President Trump would only have needed to win 3.

9. On 12/11/2020, the Supreme Court announced its decision NOT to hear Texas vs. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- in which 18 additional states had joined as plaintiffs -- on the RIDICULOUS GROUNDS of “lack of standing.” In other words, per the 12/11/2020 dissent, the majority was deciding that 19 states had no right to complain that they would be saddled for 4 years with a President who was “elected” by four stolen state elections.

10. In the 2020 Topic Proposal, John Karls employed the Law School 101 principle of taking a principle to its extreme to test its validity, to test the U.S. Supreme Court’s BRAZEN REFUSAL TO PERFORM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF HEARING LAWSUITS BETWEEN STATES with the following hypothetical question –

**********Law School 101 Hypothetical**********
Consider the following Law School 101 hypothetical which I could easily have posed while teaching for NYU School of Law if my topic had been election law rather than international tax law –

Right-wing groups had been appearing for a year prior to the election in several so-called “swing states.”

The right-wing groups created “autonomous zones” in those “swing states” and were able to intimidate the Mayors and Governors of those “swing states” to take no action.

The right-wing groups caused extensive property damage in those “autonomous zones.”

The right-wing groups also caused a considerable loss of liberty (including some loss of life) for residents who lived in, or owned businesses located in, the “autonomous zones.”

The members of the right-wing groups proudly wore “brown shirts” and relished greeting each other by clicking their heels together while standing tall and raising their right hands while exclaiming to each other either “Sieg Heil” or “Hail Victory.”

The right-wing groups stole a considerable quantity of “mail-in ballots” in each of the “swing states” (and I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions on whether the ballots were stolen from the manufacturer, from the election officials, etc., and whether the thefts were “inside jobs”).

Since the ballot counting cannot be completed in the “swing states” on election night because “mail in” ballots will be accepted for another few days, all of the precincts close down for the first night.

With a “good fix” from election-night returns re how many fraudulent ballots will be needed to swing the election in each swing state (with a safety margin) and what the voter turnout was in each precinct (providing a “good fix” on how many fraudulent ballots can be added in particular precincts to “steal” the election), the right-wing groups enter enough precinct counting facilities and process enough fraudulent ballots to swing the election in each swing state.

I’d be delighted to make alternative assumptions for this Law School 101 hypothetical example regarding whether the entry of the right-wing groups was “an inside job.”

In this regard, please remember that in 2020 there were numerous reports, including affidavits and video evidence, of election observers being ejected and windows being papered to prevent observation – both actions taken by election officials!!!

And LO AND BEHOLD!!! In my hypothetical election that takes place in the future and features these facts, THE RIGHT-WING CANDIDATE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!

**********End of Law School 101 Hypothetical**********


11. This month’s Short Quiz then posited that my Law School 101 Hypothetical should have included an additional “fact” – viz., that just like Hitler burned down on 2/27/1933 the Reichstag (the German Parliament Building), future history textbooks will record that, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 “How To Steal An Election Manual,” the STOLEN ELECTION described in my Law School 101 Hypothetical is the LAST ELECTION AMERICA EVER HAD!!!

*****
CAVEAT – Neither the Short Quiz nor this Outline allege the 2020 election was stolen – merely that we will never know because the Supreme Court refused to perform its Constitutional duty to determine whether it was stolen.

SHAME ON THE SUPREME COURT!!!


********************
Sec. C – Election Law Reform

1. The 2005 Former-President Jimmy Carter and Former Secretary-of-State James Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform featured among its 21 members such luminaries as Lee Hamilton (Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) and former Senate-Democrat Leader Tom Daschle.

2. The Commission issued a report with 87 recommendations – the report was approved by a vote of 20-1.

3. The sole dissenter was a George Washington U. Law Professor whose views were eventually embodied in a “Response to the Report of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform” which focused primarily on “Photo ID’s” which the Commission had recommended be provided FREE for non-drivers.

[BTW, former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter endorsed at an April 8-10, 2014 conference at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin TX to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a proposal by Andrew Young (former UN Ambassador, Atlanta Mayor and Martin Luther King confidante) to put Photo ID’s on Social Security cards. Jimmy Carter said he would “support it in a New York minute” and Bill Clinton agreed “The idea behind this agreement is to find a way forward that eliminates error and makes the best possible decision that we can all live with….. Let’s give somebody something else to argue about.” Reporting on the event was predictable – (1) the Washington Post’s only report on the conference (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... wont-work/) was a “hit piece” on why the Andrew Young - Bill Clinton proposal would not work; (2) the New York Times’ only report on the conference (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/p ... Position=1) ignored entirely the proposal to put Photo ID’s on Social Security cards; and (3) a reasonably-dispassionate account by our focus book’s co-author, John Fund, appeared 4 years later in National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/ ... -proposal/).]


4. Other obvious problems in the 2020 election which VIOLATED RULES ESTABLISHED BY STATE LEGISLATURES IAW ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION --

4(a). Unattended “drop boxes.”
4(b). Ballot harvesting.
4(c). Lack of “chain of custody.”
4(d). Refusal to permit partisan observers to observe the vote counting.
4(e). Others.

5. Amending 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1251 et seq., to provide that the U.S. Supreme Court must give precedence during Nov-Dec-Jan following each Presidential election to honor its Constitutional (and exclusive) Duty to hear lawsuits between states – at least those alleging stolen elections. AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT SHIRK ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY ON THE GROUNDS OF A “LACK OF STANDING” RE ALLEGEDLY-STOLEN ELECTIONS.