The U.S. Constitution clearly stands for the proposition that a state’s national representatives are *directly* chosen by the state’s voters, and not indirectly by the state’s legislatures.

This is clearly embodied in the Seventeenth Amendment. 1/12 tinyurl.com/pa4asw5
The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” 2/12
The U.S. Constitution stands even more clearly for the proposition that the electors that are sent to the Electoral College are sent there by a majority of the voters in each state, not by the state legislatures. 3/12
This raises an insuperable *constitutional* obstacle to those who seek to preserve minority Republican (and increasingly fascist-minded) rule in the United States by having national elections decided by state legislatures. 4/12
“Republicans are promoting an ‘independent state legislature’ doctrine, which holds that statehouses have ‘plenary,’ or exclusive, control of the rules for choosing presidential electors.” 5/12 tinyurl.com/y5su23f7
Another problem faced by these would-be institutional insurrectionists is that vote counting isn’t the contentious and subjective “it’s all in the mind of the beholder” matter that it would have to be for a scheme of this sort to succeed. 6/12
This was seen clearly in the recent faux-audit in AZ. The auditors tried but failed to come up with a different vote count. A marked ballot is a marked ballot, and *no* voter fraud was found.

(No presidential election has ever been decided by “hanging chads.”) 7/12
So: the Seventeenth Amendment and the Constitution more generally command that federal courts would *have* to strike down any attempt by a state legislature to substitute its political preferences for those of its voters. 8/12
To succeed in its aim, a state legislature would have to *prove* in court that the electoral count by its state election board was inaccurate and invalid, 9/12
and the experience of the Maricopa County election board in AZ (and common sense) shows that different numbers cannot simply be wished into existence. 10/12
So I am not alarmed that the scenario outlined in the Atlantic article might actually happen. But it *is* alarming that so many on the right like the idea and are toying with it. 11/12
That is a sign of inveterate hostility to the constitutional order if things don’t go their way that will inevitably undermine American democracy if it continues, even if this particular strategy doesn’t succeed. 12/12

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas Wood 🌊

Thomas Wood 🌊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @twoodiac

1 Dec
Pence did not have the power to decline to certify the election on Jan 6. If he had done so, he would have acted unconstitutionally. But if Pence *had* done this, there would have been no obstruction of the congressional certification process itself. 1/7
In that case, everything would have been done pro forma, even though the outcome would have been unconstitutional (and would undoubtedly have thrown the country into complete, violent turmoil). 2/7
But getting Pence to act unconstitutionally was the only way that Trump could have remained in office on Jan 20 *without* obstructing justice. Absent that, Trump had to obstruct the process itself. 3/7
Read 8 tweets
13 Nov
The legal case against Trump for what he did (and didn’t do) on Jan 6 took a significant, though not unpredictable, turn today with the release of the following excerpt from Jonathan Karl’s soon to be released book (h/t Axios): 1/12 Image
Here, Trump is clearly excusing and condoning the violence on Jan 6 that he incited on the grounds that it was motivated by righteous and justified political anger. 2/12
Political anger, whether righteous and justified or not, does not provide a legal excuse for *any* violence--like, for example, the insurrectionary violence that occurred on Jan 6. 3/12
Read 13 tweets
16 Sep
Today Psaki (speaking for Biden) accused Trump of “fomenting an insurrection.”

I now expect that the Admin is planning to indict Trump for what he did (and failed to do) on Jan 6, and that it goes beyond obstruction of justice (OOJ being bad enough). 1/4 tinyurl.com/yjnvrx68
On Jan 6 Biden, referring to the *rioters,* called the attack on the Capitol an “insurrection” that “bordered on sedition.” He did not accuse Trump himself of “fomenting an insurrection.”

He did today, through Psaki. 2/4
Psaki chooses her words carefully. The move from accusing the *rioters* of engaging in an insurrection bordering on sedition to accusing *Trump* of “fomenting an insurrection” really makes one wonder: What has *Biden* been told about Jan 6 by the FBI and DOJ?! 3/4
Read 5 tweets
11 Sep
My prediction: The federal district court in Austin will grant the declaratory and injunctive relief against SB 8 that the federal government has requested. That should provide a safe enough harbor for abortion providers to resume services, though relief will take weeks. 1/5
For faster action, invoke Section 242. That would involve the feds targeting and suing individuals acting as private attorneys general on the authority of rights conferred (unconstitutionally) by an (unconstitutional) state law (SB 8), and doing so in federal court. 2/5
Note that Section 242 can be invoked for violations of constitutional rights alone. That is, no federal statute is needed to invoke it (though most lawsuits under 242 do so under the authority of a statute). 3/5
Read 10 tweets
10 Sep
Can one sue and name as defendants those who might or would do something? tinyurl.com/yfzonbbc 1/6
In *actuality*, the United States sued every resident of the state of TX today--because SB 8 grants all individuals there the right to act as private attorneys general to bring lawsuits under the color of the law. 2/6
That’s fine. There is no legal objection to making all the individuals residing in TX defendants in a lawsuit against them.

And it was also unavoidable, b/c that is what SB 8 did to every single resident of the state, no matter where they stood on the new law. 3/6
Read 7 tweets
9 Sep
The WSJ reported Wednesday that the Biden Admin plans to take legal action against the new anti-abortion law in TX. It also reported that the action, whatever it turns out to be, is expected soon, and might be taken as soon as today. tinyurl.com/yeqjlj78 (paywall) 1/16
The WSJ also reports that it is unclear what action is going to be taken. Some ideas that have been tossed around are pretty far out, like setting up abortion clinics on military bases or other federal facilities in TX (not going to happen and not a good idea either). 2/16
A lot of people are excited about the idea of suing Gov. Abbott and possibly state legislators. That’s not a good idea, either. It *is* a good idea to sue other state actors (like state judges and county clerks) b/c they will be more closely involved as state actors in the 3/16
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(