Integrity and the constitution can yet give an honest 2020 election

Even with the most political censorship in U.S. history, people of integrity know that the 2020 presidential election was the most fraudulent in our history.

Opponents first said, “Show us the evidence.” When shown, they next admitted, “Okay, there was fraud, but not enough to change the outcome.”

When hundreds of whistleblowers, many Democrats, surfaced and millions of Americans viewed captured videos of filmed corruption in nightly news broadcasts showing otherwise, that lie evaporated. Thousands either participated in it or witnessed it.

When corruption could no longer be denied, the narrative changed to, “It is too late to do anything about it! Accept the election!” But if you accept fraud in any degree, aren’t you participating in it?

This election is no longer about Joe Biden and Donald Trump; it is about the integrity of every American. Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court bought the line that it was too late and the justices violated the Constitution by refusing to hear the evidence presented by Texas and seven sister suing states. States suing other states have no other recourse than the Supreme Court. They damaged the Constitution by effectively removing this portion out of the document. If eight states and the president have “no standing,” who does? No one!

We were told this was the last deliberative body that could address this election. The people were left with two bad choices, accept fraudulency or revolt. These justices, unless they accept one of several cases still pending, especially Pennsylvania, will stand in infamy as the worst in U.S. history because they should have resolved the issue but didn’t. Fortunately, the Constitution gives us yet another option for an honest and free 2020 presidential election.

Presumably, the president of the Senate, Mike Pence, has received all certified election results from all states due December 23, as required by federal law. This is followed on Jan. 6 by a joint meeting of Congress to count and declare a winner. In this meeting, the electors of any state can be challenged by legislators of either body. At this point, the process follows The Election Count Act of 1887 as follows:

“Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one

Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session and announce the results of their respective votes (Constitution Daily, December 15, 2020, Scott Bomboy).

Because of widespread election fraud, several members of the House have announced their intention to object to the election results of at least Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and perhaps Arizona and Nevada as well. A change in three would change the Nov. 3 outcome. Senators objecting are yet to be announced. Results from each state must be considered and resolved individually before proceeding alphabetically to the next state, beginning with Alaska, then Arizona, and so on. Objections require Congress to separate for two hours of debate in each body and in each state objected to before rejoining with results — perhaps six times. If so, the 2020 presidential election could take several days.

Since seven of these state legislatures, including New Mexico, forwarded two slates of electors to the Electoral College,

one for each candidate, Congress is forced to decide which is the legitimate count, or neither. Section 2 of the Electoral Count Act requires each state to have conducted its election obedient to existing state and federal law. Most of these states arbitrarily changed the law, ignoring standing law and their state legislatures who made that law. It also required disputes regarding what would be submitted to the Electoral College on Dec. 8, to be resolved “at least six days before the electors vote,” Dec. 14 ( June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673). This deadline, Dec. 8, extended to them “safe harbor” status, because they had followed the law and there was no dispute as to electors voting for them, Congress would not reject their electoral voters. Since most of the contending states cannot claim “safe harbor” protection, forcing Congress to be in effect an arbitrator, they invite being thrown out.

This is not without precedent; Democrats used the Electoral Count Act in January 2005 in an unsuccessful attempt to throw out Ohio’s electoral votes for George W. Bush. Democrats, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer each objected alleging “they were not in all known circumstances regularly given.” Regularly given encompass corruption, fraud or “may also include situations where the elector did not vote in accordance with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements” ( Wikileaks, The Electoral Count Act, “Regularly given”).

Today, actual fraud has been viewed by millions in televised news clips and testimonies of hundreds of whistleblowers. Moreover, Democrats have not denied that they did not follow existing law, which The Election Count Act of 1887 requires for seating their electors. So if there remains any integrity in the House of Representatives, they, with the Senate, will reject the electors gaining position due to fraud.

Forget the political party. Integrity is more important. State legislatures honored the Constitution in rejecting the fraudulent electors in their states, sending in a second slate of delegates not elected by illegal ballots. Will Congress seat them? We should have enough integrity in Congress to easily have vast majorities in both houses; but do we? We will see on Jan. 6. The Constitution gives people with integrity one more option for an honest 2020 election.

Harold W. Pease, Ph.D., is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www. LibertyUnderFire. org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.