Electoral college rules and governing laws explained , Elector warnings, Faithless electors to US Constitution vs states or parties, Knowingly voting for fraudulent certification
“§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”...US Election Law
“Electoral College electors owe an allegiance first and foremost to the US Constitution over State and political party dictates.”...Citizen Wells
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
Electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and indeed all states you are being forewarned.
Voting for a candidate as a result of a fraudulent certification is fraud.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
A review of the current status of the 6 states above will be forthcoming.
An injunction in those states should be filed preventing you from being in jeopardy of committing fraud.
From Citizen Wells December 13, 2020.
“Presidential Election
ELECTORAL COLLEGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: What is the Electoral College?:
A: The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers
as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and
election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for
the electors who then vote for the President. Read more
Q: Frequently asked questions:
A: Read more here
Q: Why did the Founding Fathers create the Electoral College?:
A: The Founding Father’s intent
Here is a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding
fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come
to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made
by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a
judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were
proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by
their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to
possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated
investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least
to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so
important an agency in the administration of the government as the
President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so
happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an
effectual security against this mischief.”
Q: What are the state laws governing Electors?:
A: List of states and restrictions on Electors
Q: What are so called “Faithless Electors”?:
A: “The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require
that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore,
political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the
parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless
electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting
an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges
and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under
the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to
vote as pledged.” Read more here
The US Supreme Court Obviously has not given Electors the option to
violate the US Constitution. Therefore, obviously, if the presidential
candidate is qualified, party pledges and state laws are permissable.
Q: What must an Elector be aware of when voting for a presidential candidate?:
A: The following are important considerations when casting a vote. Voting
as instructed by a political party, another person, or a state law in
conflict with the US Constitution or Federal Election Laws is a serious
matter. Those not voting in accordance with higher laws are subject to
prosecution and may be guilty of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
UNITED STATES ELECTION LAW
“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):”
“§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”
ARE ELECTORS REQUIRED TO VOTE ACCORDING TO POPULAR VOTE?
“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires
electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in
their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their
votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two
categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges
to political parties.” (From US National Archives)
SO CALLED “FAITHLESS ELECTORS”
“It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to
vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so,
more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the
popular vote or their party. These electors are called “faithless
electors.”
In response to these faithless electors’ actions, several states
have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party
vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to
assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example,
the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless
electors.
It’s important to note, that although these states have created these
laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws
hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.”
Read more here
STATE LAW EXAMPLE: PENNSYLVANIA
Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat
of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the
day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United
States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
“The mysteries of the Electoral College has enabled Pennsylvania
to play an unusually major role in determining who is President.
In 1796, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in Pennsylvania’s
popular election by only 62 votes, but the Pennsylvania electors
gave Jefferson 14 votes and Adams 1, though Adams did win the
Electoral vote, 71 to 68.” Read more here
ELECTORS HELPED SAVE THE UNION
1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.
Q: What happens after the Electoral College vote?:
A: Electoral College procedures
Q: What is the significance of your vote?:
A: The US Constitution clearly gives the states the power
and duties associated with electing a qualified president.
It is also clear that the states have not performed their
duties to ensure that the Electoral College votes will be
for a Qualified candidate. The Electors have a constitutional
duty to perform that supersedes any party contract or state
law. Each day that passes without verification of eligibility
of any candidate being voted for by Electors, brings us closer
to a constitutional crisis. There are pending court cases before
the US Supreme Court and state courts. Congress will meet in
January to count and certify votes and there will certainly be
challenges in Congress. If Congress or the courts shall fail to
do their duty, a Supreme Court Justice will be faced with a
decision to uphold the Constitution. The crisis will increase
in intensity.”
https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/13/2008-us-presidential-election-electoral-college-electors-us-constitution-federal-election-law-state-election-laws-state-officers-state-election-officials-judges-us-supreme-court-justices-dem/December
From Citizen Wells December 17, 2008.
“The ultimate objective of a presidential election to inaugurate a
constitutionally qualified president that as closely as possible
reflects the will of the people.
The states have been given the power and the duty to control presidential
elections by the US Constitution.
The pervasive attitudes of the state officers and election officials is
that they, incorrectly, have no power to qualify presidential candidates
and/or they depend on political parties to vet the candidates.
The political parties have evolved and changed since the creation of the
US Consitution and are given no powers. However, members of the parties,
as US Citizens have an implied duty to uphold the Constitution and party
officers typically have taken oaths as elected officials to uphold the
US Constitution.
Clearly, the intent of the US Constitution and Federal Election Law is
for an eligible candidate to move through this election process to allow
for a constitutionally valid vote by Electors.”
“Even though the manner of Electoral College voting in clearly defined by
the US Constitution and Federal Election Law, some states have included
explicit references to law in their Certificates of Voters that are
signed by Electors and state officers. Below are certificates from 2004.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004_certificates/
Alabama
“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and this state, certify”
Alaska
“by authority of law vested in us”
Arizona
“by authority of law in us vested”
Arkansas
“as provided by law”
California
“pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States
and the state of california, do hereby certify”
Connecticut
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States
and in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Connecticut”
Hawaii
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”
Idaho
“having met agreeably to the provisions of law”
Illinois
“as provided by law”
Indiana
“as required by the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States”
Iowa
“in accordance with law”
Kansas
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
Kentucky
“In accordance with the Twelfth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and with sections 7-11 of Title III of the
United States Code”
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Manner of voting
§ 8. The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.
US Constitution
Article. II.
Section. 1.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Minnesota
“In testimony whereof, and as required by the Twelth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States we have hereunto set
our hands”
Montana
“agreeable to the provisions of law”
Nevada
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
New Jersey
“proceeded to perform the duties required of us by the Constitution
and laws of the United States.”
North Carolina
“by authority of law in us vested”
Pennsylvania
“agreeably to the provisions of law”
Rhode Island
“in pursuance of law”
South Carolina
“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”
Tennessee
“pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of
this state”
Utah
“in pursuance of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes
of the State of Utah”
Virginia
“in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States”
Washington
“pursuant to the provisions of federal and state law”
Conclusion
- The US Constitution is clear on presidential eligibility and how
Electoral Colleges Electors are to vote.
- Ignorance is no excuse. Everyone involved was forewarned. Voting
party line over law will not be tolerated.
- Electors and state officers have signed or will sign Certificates of Voters
for the 2008 Election. As you can see from the above, they will
certify that they are aware of the law and are abiding by the law.
- Kentucky gets the award for the most constitutionally clear wording
and should be applauded for doing so.
- There are consequences for false attesting.
- One of the consequences is that the votes of many Electors are now
null and void.
- Impeachment, recall, firing, criminal charges forthcoming?”
https://citizenwells.com/2008/12/17/2008-electoral-college-votes-certification-of-voters-state-laws-us-constitution-electors-signed-certification-certifications-invalid-obama-ineligible-violators-should-be-prosecuted-constitutio/
More here:
https://citizenwells.com/
http://citizenwells.net/
Jonathan Turley et al schooled on Kamala Harris NBC status by Citizen Wells commenter, Turley commenter and of course Wells, Harris not Natural Born Citizen
Jonathan Turley et al schooled on Kamala Harris NBC status by Citizen Wells commenter, Turley commenter and of course Wells, Harris not Natural Born Citizen
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison
“Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.”...Jonathan Turley commenter George
“The Natural Born Citizen requirement for the US Presidency should have been ruled on and clarified in 2008 by the SCOTUS. Marbury v Madison makes that clear. To not do so now would be treasonous.”…Citizen Wells
A decision was made at Citizen Wells in 2008 to go for quality over quantity in commenters. It has paid off.
The spam filters stay busy.
Longtime quality commenter Pete is a fine example.
He schools Jonathan Turley, et al on the qualifications to be POTUS as a Natural Born Citizen.
From Pete today.
“The issue for people like Turley, is that they are hung up on British Common Law and it’s consequences to the United States Criminal Justice system. Since most Americans are ignorant of their history and heritage, this is what you get.
Specifically, the US Supreme court needs to interpret the term “Natural Born Citizen”. The framers intent, that one could never be “King of England” and President of the United States, put the term into the requirements for POTUS, and the 12th Amendment added the requirement for VPOTUS. The did this to prevent ‘entanglements’. Please see letters from John Jay to George Washington, to understand that the Commander in Chief of the Military couldn’t have dual loyalties.
The poorly educated, or those that simply want a work around to the Constitution use English Common law reference for British Subjects to subvert the Constitution and the Republic. Yet these opinions have no explanation for why the War of 1812 was fought (over press ganging of US sailors who were born as British Subjects), and understanding that We the People ABSOLUTELY did not accept British Common law as it pertains to our citizens. However, the Founding Father’s clearly understood that they were born British Subjects, so that had to put an exemption into the Constitution, so that those born before 1790 didn’t have to be “Natural Born”.
So…..Where did the term Natural Born Citizen come from? Clearly it wasn’t British because 1) We didn’t accept British Common law on our citiizens. 2) British are born as Subjects, NOT CITIZENS, in that time and place. Therefore, we must look elsewhere to find what the founding fathers were reading to understand their intent. Herein lies the history of who were were allied with in 1790, and it wasn’t the British. Yes, we were most definitively allied with the French. Indeed, the answer lies here.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed
The answer is France, and a unique piece of critical thinking at the time. Vattel’s work on laws of nations.
However, claiming that it was Vattel that they turned to, without evidence, is making a story whole cloth. On the other hand, if there were proof that those individuals who conspired to create the Republic were aware of Vattel, read Vattel, then it becomes obvious that the Term “Natural Born Citizen” is derived from that work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-library-washington/george-washingtons-library-book-returned-221-yrs-late-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520
“The missing book came to light when the New York Society Library was restoring its 1789-1792 charging ledger, which features the borrowing history of Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, George Clinton, and others.”
Lawyers lie, and History leaves NO DOUBT that they were reading and exchanging about Vattel’s Law of Nations. Natural Born Citizen, under Vattel, is and individual without divided loyalties at birth. That person, born of two citizen parents, on citizen soil, could claim no other country and could not be claimed by another. There was no conflict.
This story can only be understood under the geopolitical events of the time of the writing of the Constitution. We know the geopolitical events, we have the evidence of whose ideas they talked about and read, and we know why. Today’s Democrats and those Ignorant of the Constitution would destroy it and distort our history to bring their ‘new’ government. That political history is not in doubt now that we know the last POTUS used government itself to subvert the Republic as he spied on his political opponents.
In the words of our founding fathers “I hold these truths to be self evident”. The SCOTUS needs to make a decision, to take up the burden and decide upon the fate of the Republic by ‘determining’ what the term Natural Born Citizen meant.”
From astute commenter George at Jonathan Turley’s website commenting on
“Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president or vice president.
Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion,” Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.”
“The “case law” is the pudding – it is in the Jay/Washington letter which imposed a “STRONG CHECK” against candidates for president and command in chief as citizenship status – the strongest check, “natural born citizen,” being far stronger than “citizen,” the only formal and complete definition existing in the Law of Nations, 1758, which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,….” according to Ben Franklin.
“Natural Born Citizen”- Strong Check
“Citizen” – Weak Check
___________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay”
Read more:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/14/yes-kamala-harris-is-eligible-for-vice-president/comment-page-2/#comment-1990909
After multiple attempts to get a comment posted and approved, I replied to several existing comments.
One of numerous articles I have posted that explains the ruse:
https://citizenwells.com/2016/11/11/chuck-todd-is-not-stupid-todd-is-along-with-media-and-democrat-party-biased-and-colluding-zero-proof-of-obama-us-birth-chuck-todd-and-nbc-staff-attack-trump-for-insulting-president-birth-certi/
More here:
https://citizenwells.com/
http://citizenwells.net/
3 Comments
Posted in Accountability, Attorneys, Barack Obama, Biden, British, Chief Justice, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Commander in Chief, constitution, Courts, Election 2020, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, US Constitution
Tagged Harris not Natural Born Citizen, Jonathan Turley et al schooled on Kamala Harris NBC status by Citizen Wells commenter, Turley commenter and of course Wells