Constitutional Integrity Will Give Trump Reelection

Constitutional Integrity Will Give Trump Reelection

By Harold Pease, Ph.D.

Most do not realize that there exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Why? Because we are a republic—not a democracy. The latter supports tranny by the majority, the former does not. Explaining this may require another column. The election of the president was entirely left to the state legislatures not the masses. Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution reads, “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 none could be government officials.

No political parties existed when the Founders formed the Constitution, so such had no place in the selection of these special electors. These non-governmental individuals (sometimes called wise men), were to be appointed by the state legislatures presumably for their known and demonstrated integrity, experience, success, and wisdom, who would have no personal gain by the selection and would protect the interests of the states and the republic in their selection. They called it the Electoral College.

The citizens appointed to be Electoral College voters do so in their separate state capitols usually sometime in late November and that vote is sent to, and read by, the vice president of the United States before a combined session of both Houses of Congress usually the first part of December. Normally there is little media coverage of the REAL election of the president as they distain it. Until this body meets, this year December 14, there is no president-elect. The media have no constitutional authority to call the election before these Electors vote.

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that attaches college electors to a popular vote. The now existing popular vote for president began shortly after the 1824 election of John Quincy Adams when the Electoral College rejected the Andrew Jackson bid for the presidency because they thought him emotionally unstable for that office. His followers began a “symbolic” vote in his favor that the media has since treated as the real vote for the presidency. Jackson overcame the negatives against him and was given the presidency by the Electoral College in 1828.

But we have not remained faithful to original intent. Today both major political parties make their own list of Electors, all party loyalists, and in most states whichever party wins the popular vote activates their list— essentially leaving out the state legislators as sole determinators of the Electors as required by the Constitution and making the position extremely partisan.

In most, state law requires Electors to vote as the popular vote had, which has effectively destroyed their independence. In this both parties have been complacent. Those who do not vote along party lines are called faithless and penalized if possible. Just the opposite was intended. Once selected, they should be able to vote as their integrity requires. To mandate that they vote a certain way beforehand defeats, in part, the purpose for their existence.

Although it may take some time to get back to original intent with respect to the independence of the Electors in the College, the relatively recent decision in Bush vs. Gore in 2000, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist did restore the authority of the state legislature to “take back the power to appoint electors at any time.”

It reads, “In exercising their power to decide how electors are to be chosen, legislatures could not be constrained by either state law or the state’s constitution. If a state’s constitution, for example, said that the people shall choose the electors in an election, that rule did not in fact constrain the state legislature. Instead, ‘after granting the franchise’ to the people, was a majority of the Supreme Court in Bush put it, a legislature could ‘take back the power to appoint electors at any time.’ Or put differently, when the legislature acted pursuant to the power granted to it by Article II, it stands above any limits imposed by state law” (https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-state-legislatures).

In the 2020 Presidential election, Trump attorneys are documenting that in the battle ground states especially, Biden only won because of the illegal vote, thus they claim their list of electors. If they argue for election integrity, which would throw out dead voters, multiple voting and Dominion switching of Trump votes to Biden and etc., Republicans get their list of electoral voters and Trump is easily reelected with both the popular and Electoral College. It is that simple.

Given the tsunami of 2020 election fraud evidence and whistleblowers, hundreds of pending lawsuits in Georgia alone, both parties must give the courts time to sort out the facts and if election fraud is verified, reject the fraudulent popular vote. and allow the state legislatures to fulfill their above noted constitutional responsibility. Evidence certainly calls into question the validity of the popular vote in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. To protect the integrity of future elections both major political parties must agree to count ONLY legal votes throwing out all others as has been the case since 1789—but Democrats cannot support election integrity as it would cost them the election.

If Democrats choose not to support election integrity it is well to remember that five of the six above identified states are controlled by Republican state legislatures. Since a recent poll showed over 70% of Republicans believe the election fraudulent and stolen, it is likely that these state legislatures will give Trump a second term. Essentially Biden counts on censorship and social media to give him the election and Trump upon the constitutional process which includes the courts. Constitutional integrity will give Trump reelection.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor