by naturalborncitizen, ©2020

(Dec. 20, 2020) — I want to thank everyone at American Thinker for publishing my piece over there today:

“Who has the power to appoint presidential electors?”

A few more thoughts on the piece. First, if you haven’t read it, please go to AT and do so. Then ponder this:

Will. That’s all it will take. Will. Self-convene by phone, video-conference, in person, anywhere, and set this election straight by choosing Presidential Electors for Trump.

Inferior officials have refused to obey your subpoenas in Arizona. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just held that laws enacted to protect handicapped voters were trampled on by Wisconsin Election Officials and voters. In Pennsylvania, a United States Supreme Court order to segregate ballots was ignored, and the Legislature’s laws as to ballot deadlines were usurped. In Georgia, the Secretary of State unilaterally did away with the Legislature’s enactments on signature matching. In Nevada, and elsewhere, tens of thousands of people voted twice, or voted after death. All of the above took strong will.

But that was the will to break the law. You, State Legislatures, must now have the will to enforce the law. Your decision is to enforce the law, or to condone the will used to break the law. Those are your only two options.

The Legislatures were given plenary authority to police the appointment of Presidential Electors. That’s the Legislatures’ enforcement power. Call all of their bluffs now. You are terrible poker players if you fold America’s winning hand. The Florida Legislature called all bluffs in 2000, and they were praised for it.

And what about time? 3 U.S.C. § 7 set the time when the electors should meet and give their ballots. But the time is based on all electors having been appointed first. If a state is contested, especially by factions of its own Legislature, as in Arizona now, then the electors have not been finally appointed.

See my previous report, where I explain in detail why December 14th was not set in stone by 3 U.S.C. § 7. Most analysts have misinterpreted the statute. Let’s read it two ways; first, as it is written, then, as it has been misinterpreted:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment…

If Arizona, or Michigan, or any State, discovered serious fraud that would change the election result, they would have the right and duty to fix the fraud. Let’s say, for example, that Arizona did a forensic audit of Dominion machines in Maricopa County, and it showed fraud, and by correcting the result, Trump has a clear victory.

On Dec. 22nd, the Legislature of Arizona orders the appointment of Trump electors. The second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” is Dec 30, and the first Monday after that is January 4th.

Now let’s examine how most folks are reading 3 U.S.C. § 7:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December…”

Full stop. They don’t read the next few words. You see? Most people stop at December, and they ignore “next following their appointment”. Without these words, 3 U.S.C. § 7 would set a date in stone each cycle, just as Congress did with 3 U.S.C. § 1, which states:

“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”

Federal Election Day is set in stone each cycle by the statute. You can look at the statute, look at a calendar, and put your finger on the exact day prescribed by law. You cannot do that with 3 U.S.C. § 7, because you need more information than just the statute and a calendar. You need the date all electors were finally appointed.

For example, had all Presidential Electors been appointed on November 3rd, 2020, then the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” would have been December 14th. But all Presidential Electors were not appointed on November 3rd. Appointment is contested in multiple States.

Just because one branch of state government usurps the plenary authority of a state Legislature, and barrels over them in seating electors prematurely, does not erase the plenary authority of the Legislature to police Presidential Election fraud.

So, 3 U.S.C. § 7 has a floating date built into its formula, based upon the day when every State in the Union has finally appointed the electors determined by the Legislature. If the Legislature is still unsure, and it is still investigating, then no final appointment shall have taken place.


Now let’s look past January 6th. And let’s imagine that the United States Supreme Court issues an order after its January 8, 2021 conference, stating that no votes in Pennsylvania can be counted which arrived after the time set by it’s Legislature for the Presidential Election to end, which was 8 P.M., Nov. 3rd. And let’s assume that two other states see their results overturned by their Legislatures, or the Supreme Court, after January 6th, but before January 20th? What happens then?

Read the Twentieth Amendment, § 3:

“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President…”

That’s the Constitution of the United States, folks. Nobody knows what that means, because the United States Supreme Court hasn’t fully interpreted Section 3 yet.

But understand this: the Pennsylvania GOP case has been “DISTRIBUTED for conference 01/08/2021″ at SCOTUS. So maybe the Court will interpret Section 3 soon enough. Until January 20th, high noon, we are in muddy Constitutional waters.


After a wrongful election, where one candidate takes office, there’s always the possibility of a Writ of Quo Warranto. Some have argued that only impeachment and conviction in the Senate can remove a sitting President. But if you get a Writ of Quo Warranto issued, that means the White House occupant it’s issued against was never actually President. Their holding the Office of President becomes a nullity. The person has not technically been “removed” from office, but rather, a Writ of Quo Warranto acts as if that person was never President to begin with.

There is a line of cases that issue Writs of Quo Warranto for false election results caused by fraudulent or faulty tabulation machines, after the wrong person takes office:

“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.” Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 N.Y. 2d 420 (2002), 767 N.E. 2d 662.

Here is the federal Quo Warranto statute:

“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

If President Trump has the will to keep fighting, then this horrific saga in United States election history still has a very long road to go before the final result is determined.

Looking for all of your news in one place?  Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I watched Levin tonight. So I thought I’d spread around this thought online re Levin. #MarkLevin and #SeanHannity are being selective on the Constitution. We agree that Obama & Biden are behind our current constitutional crisis problems, aided by a corrupt Chief Justice, imo. But Mark Levin bears a lot of blame too. Levin now shouts Art II Section 1 Clause 2 (the Electors clause) is being abrogated. But Levin did not speak out when we needed him to defend Art II Section 1 Clause 5 in 2008 election, the #naturalbornCitizen presidential eligibility clause which was allowed to be abrogated in 2008 which allowed Obama to get in and do to the country what he has done. Now the presidential eligibility clause is being ignored again with Harris (see 12th Amendment). Levin and Hannity should have shouted from the rooftops about Obama’s constitutional ineligibility in 2008 and 2012. Instead Levin blocked people back then in debating with him and discussing with him that tried to point that out, and he still does it to this day, on Twitter and on Parler. Every part of the Constitution is important and needs to be resolutely defended. Art II Section 1 Clause 2 and Art II Section 1 Clause 5 not being defended are illustrative of what can happen. At least Levin should have openly debated the natural born Citizen clause with other scholars but Levin would not. He just shouted everyone down who tried. If all parts of the Constitution are not strongly defended the far-left will continue to whittle it down to nothing. Hannity likes and touts Mark Levin re the Constitution. But Mark Levin out of fear of the racist charge word imo let us down in 2008. For more on the natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution see: CDR Charles Kerchner, (Retired) #election2020 #SidneyPowell #JennaEllis #RudyGuiliani #DonaldTrump #MarkLevin #SeanHannity #Dobbs #TuckerCarlson #JesseWatters #rickgrennel #judgejeaninepirro

  2. And — if the Vice President elect is not eligible IAW the 12th amendment is it possible for him (or her) to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”
    What a mess!