You may have seen recently that Nancy Pelosi was campaigning in Michigan. She wasn't just doing that to support Joe Biden. The Democrats are preparing for a scenario in which the House of Representatives has to choose the President under the Constitution. /1
That could happen if the electoral college votes are tied 269 to 269 or if neither candidate receives 270 votes, which could in theory be the case if one or more states cannot get its electors together by the deadline in order to cast their votes. /2
In that situation, the House of Representatives chooses the President. But, it does NOT do so by each MEMBER of the House voting. It does so by each STATE casting one vote. So, to win, a candidate needs to get 26 or more of the states to vote for him. /3
Presumably to cast its one vote, the delegation from each state confers with it's own members & decides by majority vote which candidate to vote for. (There are no rules for that anywhere to my knowledge.) /4
So, for example, Washington state has 10 Members of Congress. They decide together how to vote Washington's one vote. In Washington, 7 members are Democratic & 3 are Republicans, so the Washington delegation would presumably vote for Joe Biden. /5
Thus, it's important to know what the split is between Republicans & Democrats for each state to see how each state would likely vote in this scenario. In one state, Michigan, there is also an Independent who might make a difference (Justin Amash). /6
And remember that the election on November 3, 2020 can/will change this. The Congress that would select the President is NOT the one sitting now, but the one that will be sworn in in January 2021. /7
But to see where the issues are, we can look at the current makeup of the current Congress. Right now, 25 states have at least 60% members who are Republican, 20 states have at least 60% members who are Democratic, and 5 states where neither party has 60% or more. /8
These are the 25 Republican states: /9
These are the 20 Democratic states: /10
These are only 5 states where the split is very close. Neither party has 60% or more in this 5 states. Florida leans Republican, Pennsylvania is even, Arizona & California lean Democratic, Michigan is even if Amash goes right or leans left if Amash leans left. /11
If today's Congress was voting, Florida is majority Republican (by one member), so Trump would have 26 states & win the Presidency. Joe Biden would have to get all 5 of these close states to vote for him & 1 of the Republican states. In the current Congress, Joe wouldn't win./12
Notice that Michigan is 50/50 if Justin Amash votes with Republicans, but is majority Democrat if he votes with them. So, the Michigan delegation would have to figure out what to do to cast it's vote if they are tied at 50/50. /13
Pennslyvania is also 50/50, so it would have the same problem as Michigan, while Arizona and Colorado are like Florida, they slightly lean toward one party (Democratic) - by one vote, so presumably would vote for Biden, but it's close. /14
So that's the current situation if today's Congress was voting on the issue, but the next Congress is who will vote, so unless there's a big change in states that have 60% majorities, these 5 states are critical for deciding the Presidency if the House must vote on it in Jan. /15
And the percentage split makes it look a little misleading, because while it's 52 to 48 Republican in Florida & 57 to 43 Democratic in Colorado, for example, in actuality that difference is only ONE seat. In theory, five seats in the House could decide the Presidency. /16
It also makes the seat Amash is vacating extremely important. If the Republican wins that seat, Michigan is 50/50, if a Democrat wins that seat, Michigan is 57% Democratic. /17
This is why they are pushing in Michigan & Pennsylvania -the 2 states effectively 50/50 now & Florida (R by 1 seat). If they can win by 1 seat in those states & hold their 1 seat leads in Arizona & Colorado the Dems have 25 states. Joe would need 1 more to win in a House vote./18
In the event that the states were to split 25 to 25 in the voting, they would have to keep voting until they break the tie. A quorum of 2/3 of the states are needed; each state is represented if at least one of its delegation is present; a majority of the states voting wins. /19
One can only imagine the horror that a tie 25 to 25 vote would be. There'd be lobbying (and who knows what else) against the delegations that have the slimmest majorities. Maybe delegations would have different rules for deciding their state's 1 vote. It could get very ugly. /20
Of course, if one of the candidates get a majority in the Electoral College (270 votes), we won't have to worry about any of this. /21
Makes it important to vote, folks. Every election, every race. /22
Another thing you could take away from this is that if you have some money to donate for races or a race, it might be wise to give it candidates in those 5 states who need help to hold their red seat or flip it red. /23
I’m late to the SCOTUS party today because we are moving today!
But I wanted to let you guys know that the decision today about the SEC is a huge win for liberty lovers. The case is Jarkesy.
The Court ruled the govt can’t impose fines on people for alleged fraud w/o a jury.
This decision is constitutional & therefore should directly affect all the other administrative agencies that have civil fraud penalty schemes too, like HUD, HHS & a bunch of others.
This has been one of the most common constitutional violations perpetrated by the federal govt.
As a young lawyer I was astonished these schemes were considered legal. It seemed obvious to me that they were unconstitutional.
The first one I worked on I was horrified because the SEC lawyers were so tyrannical- precisely because there was no check on them, judge or jury.
1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) is/was a nonprofit organization that I represented (pro bono) prior to Jan6 & before the congressional J6 Committee. They provided security for speakers at various events before & after the 2020 election.
If you followed me then, you will know that I lodged formal written objections on behalf of 1AP to the J6 Committee because the Committee was trying to violate 1AP’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of association by demanding information & testimonies from this nonprofit.
I’ve now listened to Mark Levin’s argument about SCOTUS taking DJT’s case by writ. I agree it’s at least possible, tho as Mark agrees, rare. I said this in my Daily Wire interview this morning.
The statute he cites 28 USC 1651 is right but he’s not right that it can be done now.
SCOTUS’ writ power is “in aid of” its appellate jurisdiction. So, 1. there must be a federal issue in the case, which I think there is.
But 2. there must also be a judgment that the writ is seeking review from.
I see only 2 ways that there could be such a judgment:
1. A judgment in the criminal case - which only comes once the sentence is rendered - &/or the failure of Merchan or other judges to stay any sentence; &
Having gotten the actual jury instructions (thank you @KingMakerFT), it now comes clear what DJT was charged with/convicted of. Most of the reporting on this has been wrong because reporters don’t understand the law.
He was charged with 34 counts of violating NY penal section 175.10, a falsification of books & records offense that becomes a felony if you do it with intent to cover up a second crime. 👇🏻
Bragg’s office said & the judge clearly instructed the jury that the second crime was NY code section 17-152, a misdemeanor conspiracy statute prohibiting promoting the election of any person by “unlawful means.”
1. There are multiple, well founded grounds for actual reversal on appeal in the DJT NY case. Unlike in most ordinary cases where as a practical matter there are few.
2. The conviction does not preclude DJT from running for President or serving as President.
3. Any sentence will likely be stayed pending appeal under normal legal principles, if not by Merchan, then by a courts of appeals.
4. Thus, as a practical matter, this verdict very likely does not change anything between now & Nov.
Except there will be more legal maneuvering in this case & the others.
Free speech. In the coming years, I think we're going to see a lot of free speech cases. It is one of the most important aspects of our liberty based republic. We must defend it at all costs. Literally no other rights can be defended w/out it, at least not nonviolently.
It is vital that the Right of Center understand and insist upon having free speech. It is both a legal right against the govt (First Amendment) AND a social, civil value that makes our civilization work.
The First Amendment restricts the govt's power to suppress free speech. Most people know this in a general way - you can't be jailed for your views.
An increasingly important issue, however, involves the govt's speech/views, esp when it is in conflict with those of citizens.