Arizona’s constitution permits ballot measures by the people of Arizona which can alter the laws of Arizona. In the 2015 Supreme Court case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission — The Supreme Court ruled that under the constitution of Arizona that the Elections Clause uses the word “Legislature” to describe “the power that makes laws,” a term that is broad enough to encompass the power provided by the Arizona constitution for the people to make laws through ballot initiatives. The Court found that the function of the “Legislature” was lawmaking and that this function could be performed by the people of Arizona with an initiative consistent with state law.
What does this mean? It means the people of Arizona have direct authority, as the states legislature, to, as the constitution outlined, choose “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” as it “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;”
Additionally
“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”
While the AZ legislature is divided on forensic audits, the people of AZ have direct authority over the final choice and not their elected representative.
How does this change any thing?
Remove the total number of electors delegated by AZ from the 2020 election and there is no longer a majority electoral vote for either 2020 candidate and as such our nation has no de jure (by law) President.
EDIT: I made a mistake here; reference this comment for context: https://greatawakening.win/p/12jwR0K5sD/x/c/4JDEi6w7xNI
This is a constitutional crisis that demands remedy. A number of which are available.
The same ballot initiative that withdrawals the electors of the state there should be and can be a new time, place, and manner of choosing. A re-run of the election with a new manner (paper ballots)
Alternatively the constitution can simply be amended to remove the unelected president as “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification”
Lindell facilitated Wendy Rogers in the organizing the first steps of just such a convention of the states legislatures by way of the 50 State Election Integrity Caucus.
If not by way of withdrawn electors and a re-choosing of the President by AZ, the convention of states legislatures may amend the constitution as they deem necessary and may remove the executive and seat an interim president, run a new election, or perform any manner of modification to the constitutional structure of our executive branch as they may see fit to resolve the constitutional crisis.
Now what if these actions are taken and Kamala/Biden refuse to leave and proclaim authority over the military in defense of their executive powers?
The 42nd Congress addressed this during reconstruction and on April 20, 1871 passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which states:
“or shall conspire together for the purpose in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing or defeating the due course of justice in an State or Territory” ... “or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any citizen of the United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a lawful manner towards or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector of President or Vice-President of the United States, or as a member of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime”
https://scholarlylaw.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/civil-rights-act-of-1871.pdf
Such laws require enforcement and enforcement was addressed by the same congress in an act “To enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other Purposes.” This act delegated by presidential signature and congressional vote, power over the militia, navy, and land forces to commissioners of the district courts to enforce voting rights.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Enforcement_Act_of_1870
“Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals of the United States, the commissioners appointed by the circuit and territorial courts of the United States, with powers of arresting, imprisoning, or bailing offenders against the laws of the United States, and every other officer who may be specially empowered by the President of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby, specially authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute proceedings against all and every person who shall violate the provisions of this act, and cause him or them to be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States or territorial court as has cognizance of the offense. And with a view to afford reasonable protection to all persons in their constitutional right to vote without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and to the prompt discharge of the duties of this act, it shall be the duty of the circuit courts of the United States, and the superior courts of the Territories of the United States, from time to time, to increase the number of commissioners, so as to afford a speedy and convenient means for the arrest and examination of persons charged with a violation of this act; and such commissioners are hereby authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred on them by this act, and the same duties with regard to offences created by this act as they are authorized by law to exercise with regard to other offences against the laws of the United States.”
“Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant or other process when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of the person deprived of the rights conferred by this act. And the better to enable the said commissioners to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States and the requirements of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their districts respectively, to appoint, in writing, under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties, and the persons so appointed to execute any warrant or process as aforesaid shall have authority to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county, or such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of the duty with which they are charged”
This means that the commissioners as appointed by circuit courts may at their discretion, without executive consent, deputize the national guard (militia), the army, and navy to enforce this act.
This is to say in shorter terms that the courts of the United States, through appointed commissioners, may deploy the US Military on US soil to enforce any outcome of a re-run Arizona election, and that by way of a ballot measure by the citizens of Arizona, such a condition can be constructed.
Further, this act provides the means of removal of any elected official in violation of the act.
“it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States for the district in which such person shall hold office, as aforesaid, to proceed against such person, by writ of quo warranto, returnable to the circuit or district court of the United States in such district, and to prosecute the same to the removal of such person from office”
Don’t get distracted folks. This is our last constitutional remedy. We must create the constitutional crisis and open the constitution to modification, a point a district attorney by constitutional mandate to the District of Colombia who will employ the land and naval forces as deputies to remove Kamala and Biden from office under writ of quo warranto and prosecution thereof. Further such a convention must define a new time, place, and manner of choosing that runs the election anew with paper ballots under the supervision of the national guard.
TL;DR; Read your constitution and the Civil Rights Act passed by the 42nd Congress while demanding your state legislators perform FULL FORENSIC AUDITS OF ALL 50 STATES
A lot of thought, but the first premise that the Arizona audit plays any part other than forensic, and disclosure of truth, is just wrong. The constitution gives the electoral college, house and senate specific responsibilities. The constitution does not provide any way to reconvene the electoral college, and there's no mechanism to force other electors to show up again, and congress does not have the power (at least not constitutionally) to appoint a new president after they got fooled. They would have to impeach first. I mean, they can vote on anything they want, but these scenarios make as much sense as congress voting to remove the right to bear arms. They could do it but it would be unconstitutional.
Duly noted the ability of other civil authorities to protect the law and enforce it. That's good information, but it can only be acted upon when supported by those laws. At the very least, the supreme court would have to declare the congressional action of appointing the president invalid. But congress did nothing wrong on the face of their appointment, aside from accepting information that was later revealed to be fraudulent.
Arresting them for treason under devolution is a much more sound constitutional approach in my view.
Neither does it prohibit the reconvening of the same and the constitution specifically states powers not delegated to the Congress belong to the states or to the people. It doesn’t prohibit it and neither does it give a framework for it. If the time, place, and manner is modified by a state legislature, the federal apparatus has no say.
The constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit a triumvirate of three simultaneous presidents either, and a convention of the states could amend the constitution for that, too. Getting 60% of the states together, especially with plenty of states that clearly have demonstrably corrupt governments themselves, just seems like a losing bet, and an unreliable plan.
I mean, lots of things might potentially be possible.
But devolution, as laid out in patelpatriot's blog, is a lot simpler, is already provided for under existing legislation, and reasonable within the constitution and powers previously exercised by past presidents. Not only that, it can be planned for: the path seems to have been laid out just for that purpose, with election systems being designated as critical infrastructure and explicitly included in the military purview as a threshold trigger of war.
I'm not saying OP's theory is off the table entirely, only that devolution is a simpler way to get there.
It’s not a theory. It’s simply an illustration. This community seems stuck on a coined term “devolution”. You guys need to be careful about ideologies. To many times I’ve seen this community suckered into crap like “r anon” and “jfk”. This devolution thing smells to high hell to someone long disassociated from the community.
Be critical. Don’t let your selves fall for another deep state coined term or distraction.
That's cool. Did my reply sound arrogant or uncritical? I just think patelpatriot made a solid and defensible case. Real world data and Q connections. And he's not alone: Thomas Wictor also has listed evidence for the concept, and others have similar threads. I don't especially like the devolution term. I think "exercise of wartime powers" is just as good, but there's nothing wrong with the term either. I do wonder if Trump is still president or not, as I think his term should've expired leaving no president at all. That part seems too off-track for my constitutional thinking. That's my next follow-up item to check the theory.
Even if one of us here has found the best plan, it doesn't mean that's the one in effect. Time will tell.
👍
"Later revealed" to be fraudulent LOL
Sorry but this is just wrong. They all knew very well, in advance, that there was massive deliberate systemic fraud, that the info being certified was totally fraudulent, and they KNOWINGLY went ahead with their planned coup d'etat anyway. On live TV.
It is treason.
No duh. I'm only talking about how to nab them best, doing things by the book as Q emphasized. As long as they're taken out, we'll all get what we need.