• No President has ever been elected in November.
• The Popular Vote does not elect a President, the vote of the Electoral College elects a President.
• The date to count the Electoral College vote is set by law as January 6 and cannot be delayed without passing a new law.
• It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to have a delay in announcing the winner in the Presidential race.
• Nancy Pelosi cannot legally or constitutionally be “acting” President due to a delay caused by counting votes.

Fake News Alert!  It is a deliberate false narrative that the Speaker of the House would be appointed as acting president if the popular votes are not all counted by Jan. 20, 2021.  This narrative is derived from a false conflating of the Twentieth and Twenty Fifth Amendments.  The fact checkers ought to be telling Americans that by law, there is no way a delay in counting the popular vote can create a delay in electing the president and no way Nancy Pelosi can legally be appointed as “acting” president until a popular vote count dispute is resolved.

The false narrative that invokes the Twenty Fifth Amendment’s “line of succession” ignores the language that indicates that the line of succession applies to vacancies in the presidency from the president’s death, disability, resignation or removal from office; it does not apply to a delay in counting popular votes nor from a normal expiration of a term of office.

The first thing that an honest fact checker would point out is that no president has ever been elected in November as a result of a popular vote count.  As a matter of law, US presidents are elected on January 6 of every year (unless this date is changed prior to January 6 by passing of law), when the Senate President counts the electoral votes not the popular vote (3 U.S.C. §15).  Popular vote is not used to directly elect a President, therefore having an accurate and complete popular vote count is not a factor in delaying the January election.

The next thing your fact checker would have to tell you is that the deadline for counting elector votes is set by law, therefore a delay is not legally permissible.  On the contrary, federal laws were established to avoid a repetition of the extraordinary delay incident to the electoral vote controversy surrounding the 1876 presidential election.^[1] 

Here is how it works according to the Constitution and according to the law:

After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates, seal those certificates, and certify that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President.  Those certificates are then sent to the President of the Senate, and the Secretary of State of their State.

Should there be delays or failures of state electors to submit electoral votes to Congress, there is no need to wonder, create, or invent a procedure, there is established precedent that guides us.  Federal law establishes that if no certificates of votes or lists have been received by the President of the Senate or the Archivist from electors by the fourth Wednesday in December, then the President of the Senate is directed by law to request the State’s Secretary of State to immediately forward the certificates (3 U.S.C. §§12,13).^[2]  The States whose electoral votes are missing are sent a collection notice from the Senate President warning that their electoral votes are due immediately. The process, along with specific deadlines for counting electoral votes submitted and disregarding electoral votes not submitted, is well established by historical precedent, federal law, and the Constitution. 

Every fact checker should know the date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election unless the date is changed by law (3 U.S.C. §15). The votes that are submitted in compliance with the deadline are counted.  The Votes that are not submitted in compliance with the deadline are not counted.  The Twelfth Amendment requires only a simple majority of electoral votes to elect a Presidential.  Precedent establishes what happens if some electors’ votes are not received in compliance with the deadline and are not counted.  For example, in 1865 only two of the three Nevada electors cast their electoral votes and only two Nevada votes were counted and included in the “whole number of electoral votes” to elect the president.  Similar instances of votes “not given” by electors that were not included in the “whole number” of electors reported, occurred in 1809, 1813, and 1817.^[3]

Additionally, pursuant to congressional act, a State's elector’s certificate of vote can be rejected if both Houses of Congress vote to accept the objection. This means the votes from the electors in question are not counted. In 1873 both Houses decided not to count the electoral votes from Arkansas and Louisiana.^[4]  In 1864, all of the votes from Louisiana and Tennessee were rejected, and in 1872, all of the votes from Arkansas and Louisiana plus three of the eleven electoral votes from Georgia were rejected.^[5]

The drafters of our Constitution were concerned that a delay in counting the vote could result in a quiet, non-violent political coup by one party or one or more states, where one or more disgruntled States would hold the entire election hostage.   The framers of the Constitution even warned that the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House should never be given the powers of the presidency because they are elected members of one political party and are therefore partisan. Representatives Morris and Madison warned that in order to pass their party’s political agenda those in power in the Congress could affect a political coup by indefinitely delaying the legitimate election of a president.^[6]  The system they established for electing the president is clearly established through the Constitution, Amendments, historical precedent, and Congressional law to prevent any delay and prevent that sort of political coup. 

The facts presented in this article are in a Congressional Summary Report which is available to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. Now you know what your member of Congress should already know and what the talking heads in the media don’t know or are deliberately falsifying to create uncertainty, destroy trust in our elections and foment chaos aimed at the overthrow of our Constitutional government.  These facts cannot be denied.  Know these facts. Demand they be followed. Expect them to be followed.

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”  Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1817.

^[1] Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Sessions, Including objections by Members of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Maskell, Jack and Rybicki, Elizabeth November 15, 2016, page 12.

^[2] Ibid, page 4-5.

^[3] CRS Report RL30769, Electoral Vote Counts in Congress: Survey of Certain Congressional Practices, by Jack Maskell et al.

^[4] Congressional Globe, vol. 46 (February 12, 1873), pp. 1305-1306.

^[5] David A. McKnight (1878). The Electoral System of the United States: A Critical and Historical Exposition of Its Fundamental Principles in the Constitution and the Acts and Proceedings of Congress Enforcing It. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 313.

^[6] Records of the Federal Convention by James Madison, August 27, 1787.

Share this post

One Congress to Rule Them All

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

We may see something in November that we have never seen before and it’s all connected to the 12^th amendment.

Before the ratification of the 12^th Amendment, the presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes was elected president and the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes was elected vice president.  However, in the presidential election of 1800, there was a tie between the top two candidates.  To provide a solution if that should ever happen again, in 1804 the States ratified the 12^th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The 12^th Amendment of the Constitution establishes that there must be two separate ballots in every presidential election: one for the president and one for the vice president.  The Electors, casting two votes, choose the president and the vice president in two distinct ballots.  If there is a tie on the presidential ballot, that tie would be broken by a vote of the House of Representatives under very specific instructions laid out in the 12^th Amendment.  In those instructions, the House is to select the President after January 6 but before March 4 of the same year. (Note- the new House Members will be sworn in on January 3^rd, meaning the NEW HOUSE would select the President).  Because separate elections for the President and Vice President are required by the Constitution, the newly elected Vice President would serve as President if the House does not settle the tie before the March 4^th deadline.

In 1832, with no fanfare and no constitutional amendments, political parties began choosing presidential and vice-presidential candidates to run together on a single ballot.  In the election of 1844 this practice became solidified across party lines and political parties submitted a single Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket for that ballot; a vote for one is a vote for both.  Finally, in 1940 after winning two previous elections, FDR had a political temper tantrum claiming he would not run for a third term unless HE got to choose his own running mate.  This began the tradition of presidential candidates “choosing” their own running mates.

In the 2020 presidential election, some claim something could happen in our election that hasn’t happened since 1800: a tie in the electoral college vote for President.  The 12^th Amendment was written to provide the constitutional procedure for such an occurrence.  The 12^th Amendment reads:

“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President…if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President…before the fourth day of March next following then the Vice-President shall act as President...”

However, since Americans have allowed political parties to ignore the Constitution for one hundred eighty-eight years, there is no separate ballot for President and Vice President as the Constitution demands.  As a result, there is no Vice President to act as President if the House cannot submit a tie breaking vote on March 4^th.   Here is where it gets interesting.

The 12^th Amendment provides that in the event of a tie for the office of the President the House gives the tie breaking vote.  If there is a tie in 2020, the House will pick the President, but the House is NOT authorized by the Constitution to pick the Vice President.  The 12^th Amendment establishes that in the event of a tie for vice-president, the Senate gives the tie breaking vote:

“The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President…if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…”

With the creation of single ticket running mates, there would be a tie in both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.  This means if there is a tie in 2020, the President would be chosen by the House and the Vice-President would be chosen by the Senate. For the first time in the history of America, the President and Vice President would be chosen entirely by the Legislative Branch rather than by the electoral college or vote of the people.  Our long slow march away from our Constitutional foundations will blur the lines of separation of powers beyond recognition. The separation of powers doctrine ensures that one branch of government does not assume total control over another branch.  James Madison remarked in Federalist #47, "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.”  The power to appoint is the power to control.  Because we have allowed our federal government to ignore our Constitution and operate our elections based upon the needs of parties and not the rule of law, our present Constitutional Republic is being transformed, as James Madison warned in 1798, “into an absolute, or, at best, a mixed monarchy.” Having traded the rule of law for the law of rulers, we are a nation far adrift from its Constitutional moorings.  If we want to avoid the crash against the rocks we best reconnect with our anchor.

Share this post

          2020 Florida Amendment Voter Guide          

Share this post

Four Things You Need To Know About Our US Constitution

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

1. The Constitution is the standard for Government.  Not the Supreme Court.  Not a majority vote in Congress.  Not the need or will of the People.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law. ~ James Wilson, PA Ratifying Convention, 1787

  2.  The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government. It is not an agreement between the feds and the people. That is a temporal impossibility. The federal government cannot be a party to a contract when they didn't even exist until the contract was ratified.

"...consequently, that the ultimate right of the [States], to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature." ~James Madison, 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions

  3.  Original Intent is the only legal way to apply the terms of the Constitution.  Contract law dictates that the "meeting of the minds" is the controlling standard for any contract.  Ask your professor, pundit, or politician if they will allow their employment contract to be applied as a "living breathing document" and quickly see how hypocritical they really are.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78, 1788

  4.  The Constitution created a Constitutional Republic; a government limited and defined by specific enumeration of authority where laws are made by equal representation of the people. If it is not enumerated, it is not Constitutionally authorized. We are not a democracy and our government and it's laws are not dictated by majority mob rule.

“I sir have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this not an indefinite government…but a limited government tied down to the specific powers.” ~ James Madison, to the House of Representatives, 1792

This is merely a short list of the many truths we neglect to teach and learn about our Constitution.  The miseducation perpetrated upon the American people is not by accident.  It is a coordinated effort to expand the power of those in office and extinguish the inherent liberties of the people.  Our founders warned us of this danger:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." ~ Samuel Adams to James Warren, 1775

America has the greatest history in the world of Liberty and inherent rights for ALL.  None other compares.  We have the greatest Constitution in the world. 

“In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of hateful things; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purpose.” ~ Frederick Douglass, 1852

Our government problems are not because of the failings of the Constitution.  The many crises in America are because we are failing to enforce our Constitution and demand those in government operate according to this standard.  That will change and our American experience will cease to decline when the people have the knowledge and courage to turn away from the dictated errant narrative and learn to speak and stand for truth.

~ KrisAnne Hall, JD

KrisAnneHall.com

LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Share this post

Learning From Natural Disasters: FEMA & Federal Aid

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Patrick Henry, a designer of our Constitutional Republic said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”   What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters?

As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not SHOULD we help, but instead where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.

Disaster Relief is Not Within Federal Authority

Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States.   James Madison, father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792:

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist.  We know that to be a factual statement by the terms of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution:

“…an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.  ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States.  No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:

Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist #78: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid.

The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison, addresses such a violation in 1800: “…dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…”

If elected representatives in Washington DC cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States, then that authority, very plainly does not legally exist.  Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority.  If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all.  A supreme Court opinion, nor series of opinions cannot be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretended authority.

Sadly, what we hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.”  According to William Pitt, the Younger, in 1783 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  The purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers. If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities.  To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have ZERO authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.

How Should Disaster Relief Be Handled

If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters.  Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States (in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters) could individually provide relief as they see fit. In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle. 

Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States.   This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support.  They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one State, the remaining States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate.  The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form.  As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion.

James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

The Bottom Line

There is no Constitutional reason and no Constitutional authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. There is and never has been any constitutional reason to look to any President to be the savior after a storm, during a pandemic , or other natural disaster.* The only reason to look to any President in a time is crisis is political - to encourage love or hate of a personality - so parties can build power.  However, because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government, most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government.  Charity is a voluntary gift of the individual. Government cannot give charity as they don't take money voluntarily and they cant "give" what they don't actually own.  So the solution is very simple:  (1) Give to your neighbor who is actually in need. (2) Don't be a pawn in the political game for power by blaming someone in government or crying out to government to fix the hurt.

*If you have a questions about "Emergency Powers" then you must read THIS ARTICLE.

Study a complete course on the proper power placement of the State and Federal governments here: www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Share this post