A Discussion of the Criminal Aspects of Attempting to Stop the Proper Election of Joseph Biden

-

 

1. The Senate procedure in the United States Constitution for determining who won a presidential election is simple and clear.

2. Article II Section I provides that the electors in the states will “certify the votes.”

3. The president of the Senate (the vice president) shall open all the state certificates and the “votes shall be counted.”

4. The person having the greatest number of votes “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.”

5. When the Constitution sets out a specific procedure it must be followed.

6. The Senate has no power to change the Constitution.

7. The Senate has no power to federalize the constitutional election laws. That would require a constitutional amendment, approved by the people.

8. A senator committing a deliberate intentional constitutional violation has no legislative immunity from lawsuits.

9. The senators are making a deliberate effort to disenfranchise 81,283,485 voters for Biden. (Number of voters listed at the time of this blog writing)

10. As most observers admit, there is no evidence of fraud in the election and certainly no evidence presented by the objecting senators. 

11. The law of sedition, involving the overthrow of the government, has a complex history in the United States. But among the criminal statutes the senators are flirting with, one provides “any official who deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive the residents of a state of a fair and impartially conducted election process by the tabulation of ballots that are known to be false” is committing a criminal act which subjects them to five years in prison. See 52 United States Code 20511. There are 81 million voters that are victims of the senators' threatened actions.

12. Here the senators are doing more than advocating a violation of the constitutional election of the president; they are doing acts aimed at causing that illegal substitution of Trump for Biden.

13. This is not simply free speech by the senators. This is undertaking steps, actions, and votes to overthrow our Constitution.

14. No political considerations that motivate these senators justifies their actions.

15. How are the votes of the senators different from armed men invading the senate chamber with guns demanding that the votes be changed? 

16. Suppose they succeeded in getting the necessary votes to replace Joseph Biden with Donald Trump. You should answer the question: What would happen to our country, our democratic system, our Constitution?

17. I am sending this blog to the senators who threaten to derail America’s vote for president. You should also express your views to these senators. Write a letter. Make a telephone call or visit their headquarters to tell them what you think. Democracy is supposed to work that way.

18. These senators have put the future of our legal system in play. 

19. I wish to be clear that this is not an attack on Trump voters. Having thought about voters who voted for President Trump, I see us sharing three basic values: First is a desire for liberty, the ability of all of us to live a free life. Second, we wish to preserve democracy, including especially, the right to vote. Third, I have heard a number of Trump voters express their honest view that they are saving our Constitution. I agree with that cherished general belief.

20. These senators are threatening something that most American voters do not want. When a sports game is over, we teach our children to line up and shake hands with the winner. That is an important American value.

Copyright 2021 James J Brosnahan 

Mr. Brosnahan has argued many Constitutional cases including in the US Supreme Court. He teaches a class at a Bay Area Law school. He has practiced law for 60 years. For further comment, call: (510) 549-2531.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The American Establishment Wants to Stop Voter Theft

-
       The business community and the legal community have had enough of the public vote theft. There is a full-page advertisement in the  New York Times  today listing approximately 100 major American corporations and almost all of the large law firms (including Morrison Foerster LLP) in the United States, in opposition to the public voter theft being enacted in several states.      Senator McConnell has overplayed his hand and is now in political trouble. It is often the American establishment that has to step forward and save our democratic form of government. Forty-seven states have pending or enacted statutes with the aim of reducing the vote. Those statutes eviscerate our democratic form of government. The immediate and widespread reaction of citizens was to stop doing business with any company that tolerated voter reduction or theft, and so it should be.      A bill pending in the congress now would establish a bipartisa...
Read more

Senator McConnell Has Inverted the Process of Democratic Discussion by Telling His Base of American Business to Stay Out of Politics

-
  Senator McConnell’s lecturing of American business to stay out of politics was hastily followed by his statement he was not talking about contributions . That lecture represented a reversal of normal political dialogue. In a democracy it is the voters who tell the office holders what they need and what they want. It is not the office holders who instruct the voters as to what they’re allowed to do. Under the First Amendment as declared by the US Supreme Court on several occasions, corporations have a right to express political opinions. Efforts to reduce the vote is among the most important subjects for public discussion. There’s something more important about what McConnell did. He took an axe to the republican base. For a number of years the republican hierarchy has been trying to manage a joining of American business with right-wing groups, some of them with extreme positions. It has been effective at times. But the recent praise by Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, lavished o...
Read more

John F. Kennedy's Speech on Religion - September 12, 1960

-
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech: Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views. While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hun...
Read more