On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show, The courts must not dictate election law! Under the federal Constitution, only the legislature of each state has all power over the times, methods, and procedures to choose their electors. A president wins a state when electors, as made lawful by state legislatures, declare a candidate the winner on December 14th and certify their respective state’s electoral votes for that candidate. The Constitution provides no “public health emergency” exception that enables governors or judges to override them and create a new system for elections as noted by Daniel Horowitz. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the U.S Constitution. Then, Adam Laxalt calls in to explain how the Democrats changed Nevada’s electoral system in the last 80 days with problems matching signatures and notes receiving multiple ballots by mail. Laxalt joins the Trump campaign in filing lawsuits to challenge unconstitutionally changes and extraconstitutional statutes. Later, Victor Davis Hanson joins the show to discuss why active litigation over contested ballots should prevent further ballot counting and states from being called for either candidate. Afterward, Republicans have held the senate and didn’t lose a single incumbent in the House. Yet, President Trump who was ahead is now behind in states that other Republicans won. This is what happens when mail-in ballots are dumped overnight and new election statues are unconstitutionally created by bureaucrats and judges that are part of the establishment.
THIS IS FROM:
Right Scoop
David Axelrod explains just how big Trump’s impact has been on this election…
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Stefani Reynolds
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
You know, and this election, we’re going to hold the Senate. We’re going to pick up, according to Kevin McCarthy on this program last night, anywhere between eight and 14 seats in the House. And you should also know that the Democrats hope to flip a couple of state legislatures because it’s the big year that’s coming for gerrymandering and in fact, Republicans flip to. So down ballot, it was a disastrous night for the Democrats, disastrous. Whether it’s the House, whether it’s the Senate or whether it’s the state legislatures. And it’s also Kevin McCarthy pointed out the Republicans didn’t lose a single incumbent, not one. That’s a big deal. The president picked up a bigger percentage of minority votes, blacks and Hispanics and Jews. And yet so many of these battleground states. According to these tallies, he’s behind. And I have comments on that in a little bit. President’s going to speak, we’re told, at six thirty PM Eastern. We will take it as soon as he’s. And begins it begins speaking. But I want to walk you through this, because, you know, we’ve talked about this, it’s now becoming more and more prominent on television with legal commentators who have legal commentators who have not spent more than 15 minutes studying aspects of the constitution that I’ve spent my entire life studying. And they’re good listeners. But still, they don’t know enough. They just don’t. Now, the various provisions in the Constitution were carefully debated in Philadelphia, some more than others. But one that was given a lot of attention, particularly by the ratification of the ratifying states. Was Article two, Section one, clause two. Each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of the senators and House. In other words, the Electoral College and the way that those electors are chosen. Nowhere else in the Constitution that they do they specifically. Anoint and reach into a state government as to which branch shall do what. Now, why is this provision in the federal constitution? Why is it there? It’s there. Because several of the state delegates who were at the constitutional convention demanded it. Why did they demand it? For two reasons. Their states would never ratify a constitution that didn’t leave in the hands of the state legislatures where they were in the first place, the manner in which. Electors are chosen. They didn’t want the federal government to play any role whatsoever. Just remember, way back then, the federal government didn’t exist, right? Number two. They would never have imagined. Kautz. With the power that they exercised today, the power that they have seized for themselves, interfering in an electoral process, that is interfering in a process where the state legislature sets the rules. They would never have agreed to such a constitution, a constitution of the powers, any court, let alone their own courts. To dictate what the election laws are going to be within their own state. Back then, the courts were relatively weak, even though state courts, the power was in the state legislatures, that’s where it was. All through the last 48 hours. I keep hearing count the legal votes. You see Marc Elias, the ambulance chasing slip and fall Svengali, lawyer for the Democrats and Robert Bauer of the same ilk. These men coordinated with their state Democrat parties litigation in key battleground states, especially Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan and other states. To change. The voting systems in the states, the problem was and is the Republican legislature in Pennsylvania, the Republican legislature in Michigan, the Republican legislature in so many of these battleground states. So what did they do? They went around them. They went around them and they went to a quarter, they went to a board of elections, so they went to a federal judge, they did whatever they had to do, whatever they could do. So they changed the playing field. It’s like a baseball game, suddenly you get up, you know, you’ve got the diamond is the way it’s supposed to be. Everybody’s got the number of players they’re supposed to have. We have our rules. And then right before the World Series, they say, right, we’re making some changes. What are we doing? While the left field fence is coming in, you get five strikes rather than three. We just want to make sure every batter has a chance. And rather than nine innings will make it 18 innings, just to be fair, just in case, you know, somebody called and then they get hot on the at the plate. Excuse me. That’s what happened in Pennsylvania. The Democrats, including the governor. Litigated up to the state Supreme Court because the elected justices, they knew, the vast majority of them were Democrats, they had pushed legislation on the Republican legislature, which refused to embrace it. So the Supreme Court did it for them, a clear violation of the federal constitution. The matter goes up to the United States Supreme Court and John Roberts and the left on the court who don’t much care about federalism unless it advances their ideological perspective and this nonsense. We have six conservatives on the court and three. No, we don’t. So that Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, what it should have said is a level playing field. The federal constitution says without getting involved anymore, the federal constitution says it couldn’t be clear that Article two, Section one, clause two. Exactly how this is supposed to be handled. I should say Section one clause, too, and that’s that, that’s that and don’t come back. That’s that don’t come back. But that’s not what happened. Roberts has a cockamamie idea that if a state court gets involved, that’s really none of our business. And of course, if a federal court gets involved, maybe we can stop that. No, that’s not what the federal constitution says. I do a state courts, federal courts, the state legislature has all the power. Period. So when you hear people saying over and over again, like parrots count all the legal votes, even so-called conservative lawyers will count all the legal votes under the conditions that have been now set unconstitutionally by certain courts, among others, or the board of elections in the case of North Carolina and the Board of Elections under the secretary of state of Pennsylvania, they changed the rules and they changed them in violation of the federal constitution. This is a fact, the same Democrat Party that that doesn’t believe in the Constitution, that talks about the 1619 project, the same constitution that backs the rioters and the looters because they won’t criticize them and so forth. Now they’re saying, count all the legal votes, count all the legal votes now that you change the law unconstitutionally. More on this when I return.
Hour 1 Segment 2
Adam Laxalt is the former attorney general, the great state of Nevada, and the Trump campaign is bringing litigation in that state, partly based on what Adam Laxalt gathered, information that’s very, very troubling. Adam Laxalt, how are you and what’s up? I’m doing great. Mark, how are you doing? OK, I could be better, but go right ahead. Well, you know, I’ve been sounding the alarm for many, many weeks. The Democrats changed our system fundamentally and the last 80 days. And they gave us a system that is a mail in ballot system, a system that this state has never tried before and they didn’t like three months ago. Right. They did it inside 90 days. And someone once told me this is what we look to in foreign countries. When something like that happens, it makes you very, very skeptical of what someone may be doing to hold on to power so they change the system. We have incredibly uncleaned voter rolls and we’ve documented many, many examples of ballots and trash cans in an apartment building. One voter reported 18 ballots arriving in this house, if you can believe that. So we have these unclean rolls and we were told that signatures would be the one thing that would keep this election safe and fraud. Well, guess what? We do not have the ability to observe signature matches for mail in ballots in Clark County. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of votes that we have not been able to observe. And we can’t challenge these. We have no ability to they keep saying, well, prove that there’s voter fraud and these signatures. Well, if you can’t lay your eyes on them, no, they lock you in the closet and then they say, prove that there’s voter fraud. Exactly. Now we are confident. And the day when we finally get to look at signatures that there will be just endless mismatches. We are absolutely positive right now. They’re only failing one percent of signatures in the system. Again, that’s brand new. We have systems that are 10 percent failure rate 15, 20, and somehow 99 percent of these signatures are supposed to match. It’s obviously very, very hard to believe. And so we are we’re battling away. And, you know, we’ve just filed a we’re just about to file a lawsuit, I should say, where we are going to allege that the fact that they’re using this machine is an improper authentication method. State law, as you were just talking about, that’s that’s what needs to be followed. And there’s nothing in state law that allows Clark County to use this machine where hundreds of thousands of ballots have counted. So that’s one of our claims, that they violated the election clause. And then we have an equal protection and due process clause claim as well. And these are going to be filed when because we’re running out of time. This isn’t being drafted all day and then the next seven. All right, well, good job and you have been talking about this over and over again, and we hear that these networks are going to call Nevada by 9:00 or they’re going to call Pennsylvania by 9:00. And you’re a lawyer. You’ve been an attorney general. We all know. Well, that doesn’t make it true. While there’s ongoing litigation and the states are still up in the air as a result of the litigation. And you’re waiting for decisions, correct? Yeah, well, we’re going to imminently produce thousands of voters that voted from they voted in this election and they moved out of the state of Nevada. That is evidence we can we are going to continue to put out as many examples as we can of dead people and others that that we believe have voted improperly in this election. And there’s also still probably 180,000 ballots out there. Most of them are Election Day, which broke heavily for the president here in this state and, of course, across the country. So, you know, we still have a path and we’re battling away. All right. Well, good luck to you. Keep us informed here, OK? OK, thank you, Mark. And good luck. Good luck. There’s a lot of these battles going on in the States now. How much time do I. Richie Rich? Well, I’m not going to rush it now if the president comes on right after the break, we’ll go straight to the president. If not, I want to raise an issue with you. Daniel Horowitz has written a beautiful piece, as he always does, for The Blaze, where we’re getting into this issue of of Article two. Now, you know, he and I spent a lot of time writing about and talking about the courts and the Constitution. And he’s he’s also incorporated a number of things that that I’ve been writing about over the years and talking about over the years, in fact, the title of his pieces. And we’ve just linked to it. If you wish to go to a parlor or Twitter, if you must, I guess Facebook, although I don’t go there anymore. How Republican controlled state legislatures can rectify election fraud committed by courts and governors. And it’s not just election fraud. It’s the entire election system that has been changed by some of these courts. And I will begin it, actually, I’m too anxious to wait who determines the outcome of the presidential elections in a given state, governors, secretaries of state or boards of elections, superintendents, the courts? Fox’s decision desk writes, No, the president wins a state when electors selected by state legislatures conduct a vote in their respective states on December 14. That’s ultimately, according to the Constitution, the state legislators wind up serving as the kingmakers in a disputed election. Endless pots of unverified mail in ballots that often fail to meet state election law standards weren’t created overnight at three a.m. on November 4th. They were created by a mix of illegal administrative actions taken by Democrat administrations in the key states and the state and lower federal courts overriding long standing state election laws. This has been going on for years but accelerated to a fever pitch over the past few months. I’m going to dig further into this. Ladies and gentlemen. This is a very, very important week and weeks of programming here. Rather than wait till tomorrow to hear it from other from other hosts who are taking notes now, stick with me, because I know exactly what I’m talking about. And it’s crucially important to get this right. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
You know, I am concerned having to go back and forth on this, that the staccato nature of my discussing this might cause some confusion, but it could even get worse because the president will speak soon. But I want to get into this. The Constitution in Article one, Section four, clause one. Gives state legislatures the power over the times, methods and procedures of elections. And provides no public health emergency, quote unquote, no public health emergency exception that enables governors or judges to override them and create a new system for elections in that amazing. At its core, this is why we have such post-election chaos, and it was by design today. Set in motion for years by the courts and crystallized over the past few months by using covid-19 to remake the in-person voting electorate into a postal ballot free for all in which Justice Corseted, described as the greatest judicial intervention in elections in 230 years. Well, now the state legislatures can have their revenge and have the final say and fix this as intended by the Constitution, he writes. Mark Levin reminded his audience today that state legislatures are the ones who choose the electors who directly vote for president in each state. He posted the following reminder to the Republican state legislatures. You have the final say over the choosing of electors, not any board of elections, secretary of state, governor or even court. You have the final say. Article two of the federal constitution. So get ready to do your constitutional duty. Horowitz writes, In case you think this is some desperate tactic Levin has concocted because he doesn’t like the impending results of the state ballot tallies, he’s been warning about this for months while everyone slept as the courts rewrote election laws, leaving a constitutional lawyer warned on September 18, quote, As in Pennsylvania, the Michigan legislature is controlled by the Republicans. They must meet in emergency session and exercise their article to power under the federal Constitution and seize back control over the election system, unquote. The run up to the election courts have allowed late voting named late voting, namely the submission of ballots after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked before British and American court allowed ballot harvesting under certain circumstances, which appears to have occurred late at night in Wayne County, Detroit. There’s been a series of rulings or administrative decisions in numerous states which are contrary to state law and in some cases, federal election law that enabled Democrats to upend the electoral process, putting aside questions of additional fraud in the early morning of November four. Liberals say they want every vote to count, but having votes submitted by insidious special interest groups that violate the terms and conditions of absentee balloting ensures that the lawfully cast votes of individuals indeed do not count. We can debate the policy merits of some of these anomalous voting procedures, but everyone agrees that state legislatures control the process. In many blue states, they’ve already codified Democrat priorities on ballot harvesting, registration deadlines or lack thereof, a weak voter verification system. But in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, there were laws on the books that were illegally ignored by the Democratic governors and the courts. In his 2005 book, Men in Black, Levin noted that the reason the United States Supreme Court ruling on the Florida recount in 2000 was final was not because the courts are supreme over the electoral process. Quite the contrary. The Supreme Court was merely rectifying a mistake the state court made because Democrats were the ones who involved the courts in the election process to begin with. But why did Al Gore ultimately accept the decision in Bush versus Gore? Levin writes on page 117 men in black, quote, The Florida legislature could have and in fact was preparing to intervene and name a slate of electors if the Florida Supreme Court continued to interfere with the election. The legislature, Levin wrote, which was controlled by the Republican Party in 2000, had absolute authority under the Constitution to choose Florida’s members of the Electoral College, unquote. Article two, Section one. Clause two of the Constitution stipulates that, quote, Each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct the electors to vote for president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the date of that vote, which, pursuant to three United States code, Section seven, is the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, a presidential election years. This year, it’s December 14. Notice how the Constitution specifically gives the job of choosing electors to the legislature and unlike with standard legislation that is not this is not shared jurisdiction or responsibility with the governor, much less some random state or federal court. Charles Pickney, one of the signers of the Constitution from South Carolina, reiterated on the Senate floor on January 23, 1900, how careful the framers were to cut Congress out of the process. He said on the Senate debate the electors are to be appointed by each state and the whole direction as to the manner of their appointment is given to the state legislatures. Nothing was more clear that Congress has Pickney had no right to meddle with it at all, as the whole was entrusted to the state legislatures, they must make provision for all questions arising on the occasion. Technically, this means that the state legislatures could even appoint electors and by the way, they did early on and completely avoid or cancel out popular election ballots we have today, at least for the president or vice president. This was the practice in some states in the early days of the republic. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in its 1833 commentaries on the Constitution, state legislatures choosing the electors themselves, quote, has been firmly established in practice ever since the adoption of the Constitution and does not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it. Now, nobody’s pushing this. That in each case, this is what the court should do, but if you have a rogue state courts, a rogue secretary of state, a rogue board of elections, a rogue governor of the opposite party and a Supreme Court that fails to do its job, the United States Supreme Court. Thanks to the chief justice of the United States and the three liberal stooges, the legislature has final quote unquote, judicial review. That is its legislative review. Indeed, in 1892, in the McPhearson versus Blacker case, in upholding Michigan’s practice of dividing the state’s electors by congressional district has done today in Maine and Nebraska, the Supreme Court wrote the following. The legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the matter of appointment. It might itself exercise the appointing power by joint Balladur concurrence of the two houses or according to such mode as it designates in Bush versus Gore. The High Court reiterated that any state legislature, quote, may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself. This is exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court should have put a stop to this immediate ladies and gentlemen. But it failed thanks to Roberts and the Three Liberal Stooges. Obviously, none of us wants to abolish popular elections except them, I would argue the courts and the Democrats, but why would the Constitution even grant state legislatures such power? While the framers understood that, unlike Congress, these are the bodies that are closest and most accountable to the people. And I, like judges, are executive, state or federal. They are numerous in a deliberative body and wield unilateral authority without some degree of consensus. By overriding the legislatures and how to properly conduct the popular elections that choose these presidential electors, the courts, the governors, the boards of elections, the secretary of state’s have disenfranchised their voters. A Michigan court extended Election Day for two weeks. A Pennsylvania court, along with the Democrat secretary of state, essentially nullified signature verification from Illinois ballots. That’s if there’s an if there’s ample evidence of voter fraud, there would be sufficient to alter the will of the people through this popular election. It is incumbent upon the state legislatures and those states to reclaim their authority over the Electoral College and rectify the fraud that has upended our election process. Daniel Horowitz at The Blaze. The problem is this, when I was growing up in Pennsylvania and I was involved in Republican and conservative efforts there and we backed a handful of. Young Turks, Ronald Reagan in 76 and so forth. We always used to joke about Republican leaders and politicians in Pennsylvania. We used to say, do you know what the official animal in Pennsylvania is? And Mr. Producer, it’s the rhino. The rhino, the rhino. The president pro tem. Of the Senate in Pennsylvania is a Republican. Hence, the majority leader of the Senate in Pennsylvania is a Republican. The speaker of the House of the Assembly in Pennsylvania is a Republican, hence the majority leader in the House. And Pennsylvania is a Republican. I passed word. To the leadership of the state Senate, the Republicans. Two weeks ago, three weeks ago. That they needed to act then. To pass a joint resolution without the signature of the governor, an emergency special joint resolution. Holding is the final voice, the decisions of the state Supreme Court null and void. They wouldn’t do it. They didn’t do it. They should have done it. Would it have been controversial, of course, because the Constitution doesn’t apply anymore, you know, you can burn down buildings and riot in the streets and on. They call that mostly peaceful. But when you actually follow the original constitution, the plain language, does it say anything about courts or boards of directors or governance? Not specifically says otherwise. The state legislature, apparently that is. Controversial. So when people say count all the legal votes. They don’t really mean it. Right, Marco? Right, Chris, right. Adam. The three Republicans who chose to speak out and attack the president. Count all the legal votes, they say, well, now we look at Pennsylvania. Will it be unconstitutional actions of the Supreme Court, the secretary of state and the governor? So which of the legal votes? Senator. Governor, Congressman. I said, which are the legal votes? The votes that were cast in violation of Article two of the federal constitution or the votes that were cast. Within the confines of Article two. Section Section one, actually, clause to the Constitution. You see, this is why we lose. Because the Democrats set the stage and the Republicans embrace, so we’re going to take a short break and we’ll be back immediately.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Every occasion that I know, I had Joe Biden up by five points in Florida and they were off by eight point four points and I won Florida easily, easily. So they had me losing Florida by a lot and I ended up winning Florida by a lot. Other than that, they were very accurate. They had him up four points in Ohio and they were up by twelve point two points. And he also won Ohio. Great state of Ohio very easily. The Washington Post said Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin and it was basically even they were up by about 17 points. And they knew that they’re not stupid people. They knew the suppression. There are now only a few states yet to be decided in the presidential race. The voting apparatus of those states are run in all cases by Democrats. We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually, and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and they wouldn’t allow legally permissible observers. We went to court in a couple of instances and we were able to get the observers put in. And when the observers got there, they wanted a 60, 70 feet away, 80 feet, 100 feet away or outside the building to observe people inside the building. And we won a case, a big case, and we have others happening. There are a lot of lots of litigation even beyond our litigation. There’s tremendous amount of litigation generally because of how unfair this process was. And I predicted that I’ve been talking about mail and voting for a long time. It’s it’s really destroyed our system. It’s a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt, even if they aren’t by nature, but they become corrupt. It’s too easy. They want to find out how many votes they need and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait and then they find them. And you see that on election night we were ahead and vote in North Carolina by a lot, tremendous number of votes. And we’re still ahead by a lot, but not as many because they’re finding ballots all of a sudden, oh, we have some mail in ballots. It’s amazing how those mail in ballots are so one sided, too. I know that it’s supposed to be to the advantage of the Democrats, but in all cases, they’re so one sided. We were up by nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. I won Pennsylvania by a lot. And that gets whittled down to I think they said now we’re up by ninety thousand votes and they’ll keep coming and coming and coming. They find them all over and they don’t want us to have any observers, although we want a court case. The judge said you have to have observers likewise in. And they’re appealing. Actually, they’re appealing. We want a case that we want people to watch and we want observers and they’re actually appealing, which is sort of interesting. I wonder why that appeal that all we want to do is have people watch as they do the vote tabulations. Likewise, in Georgia, I won by a lot, a lot with a lead of over getting close to 300,000 votes on election night in Georgia and by the way, got whittled down. And now it’s getting to be to a point where I’ll go from winning by a lot to perhaps being even down a little bit. In Georgia, a pipe burst and a far away location totally unrelated to the location of what was happening. And they stopped counting for four hours and a lot of things happened. The election apparatus in Georgia is run by Democrats. We also had margins of 300,000 and Michigan way up and Michigan won the state. And in Wisconsin, we did likewise fantastically well. And that got whittled down every in every case. They got whittled down. Today, we’re on track to win Arizona. We only need to carry, I guess, 55 percent of the remaining vote, 55 percent margins. And that’s a margin that we’ve significantly exceeded. So we’ll see what happens with that. But we’re on track to do OK in Arizona. Our goal is to defend the integrity of the election, will not allow the corruption to steal such an important election or any election for that matter. And we can’t allow silence of anybody to silence our voters and manufacture results. I’ve never had. I’ve been doing a lot of public things for a long time. I’ve never had anything that’s been as inspirational by people calling, talking, sending. Things to us, I have never seen such love and such affection and such spirit as I’ve seen for this, people know what’s happening and they see what’s happening and it’s before their eyes. And there are many instances which will be reported very shortly. There’s tremendous litigation going on. And this is a case where they’re trying to steal an election, they’re trying to rig an election, and we can’t let that happen. Detroit and Philadelphia, known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country, easily cannot be responsible for engineering. The outcome of a presidential race is very important. All right. We will be back very shortly. And if the president’s press conference continues, her statement continues. You can bet we will. We will be there and cover it. I’ll be right back.