On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, Under the state constitution of Pennsylvania, the voting system can only be changed by the legislature. These changes require two consecutive sessions of the State Assembly and the public must be informed – this did not happen in this election and disenfranchised the citizenry and the voters. An omnibus bill known as Act 77 circumvented the legal process and was challenged but was rejected by the rogue state Supreme Court because the Court claimed the Republicans waited too long to bring the case (latches). This is problematic because the plaintiffs had no standing until the election occurred. This problem must be posed as a federal question and the plaintiffs must appeal this issue directly to the US Supreme Court. This must be fixed in Pennsylvania now or it will resurface in the future and no remedy needs to be fashioned by the US Supreme Court, but for the existing law to be upheld. If not, the electors will statutorily present their votes to Congress on January 6th and their votes will be recorded. This will not end if we do not return to a lawful and constitutional voting practice. Then, Joe Biden’s choices for his would-be cabinet are a choice between Trotskyites and Stalinists, not between progressives or moderates. Later, President Trump got more votes than any other President and 11 million more votes than he did in 2016. Trump’s support among Black voters grew by 50% and he made tremendous gains with Hispanic voters as well. These stats simply don’t add up to a Trump loss. Afterward, Sidney Powell gets maligned by the Washington Post as a conspiracy theorist when it’s that very publication that perpetuated the Russian hoax conspiracy theory in its pages. Yet the media is happy to discuss would-be President Joe Biden breaking his foot playing with his dog.
THIS IS FROM:
NRO
Trump’s Disgraceful Endgame
Mark Levin Show
Per-Curiam-Order
Politico
Lessig: 20 Trump electors could flip
Washington Post
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton. (November 24, 2016)
The Blaze
New analysis shows Biden winning nearly impossible margins on mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania
The Spectator
Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling
Red State
Democrats Are Currently Stealing a House Seat in New York
Washington Post
For Trump advocate Sidney Powell, a playbook steeped in conspiracy theories
Newsmax
Dark Money, Assailed by Dems, Aided Biden: Analysis
NY Post
Nearly one-third of NY, NJ small businesses reportedly closed in 2020
Daily Caller
America’s Biggest Teachers Union Shakedowns
NY Times
Nike and Coca-Cola Lobby Against Xinjiang Forced Labor Bill
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / William Thomas Cain
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
This is one of those shows where I think you want to listen for three hours because in the face of the juggernaut, what hat which would have us put this election behind us. I’m going to fight those headwinds. National Review, which has lost much, if not most of its appeal to many of us as an unsigned editorial today entitled Trump’s Disgraceful Endgame. They have legal writers over there who are utterly unencumbered with the constitutional law and the facts. Legal analysts all over TV, as usual. Who do not have the background, the education or the experience to be discussing these matters in any significant way, and they’re not alone. You have these serious. Serious studies and analysis by highly competent and reputable individuals who are never. Interviewed and their work. Is never discussed. And big media and on much of conservative media. The never Trump or in particular. They don’t challenge the specific of the studies and the statistics that are presented. They just joined the the gaggle of howling coyotes out there who demand an endless. But this will not end in this election, it will not end in the next election. It won’t end in the election after that. If we do not return to a lawful and constitutional. Voting process. And I want to address this in a number of ways, I want to take one of the cases as an example, the Pennsylvania case I’m very, very familiar with. Now, let me keep it as simple as I know how. Under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Under the Pennsylvania Constitution. You can only change the voting system by constitutional amendment, I heard my friend, brilliant man, Professor John Eastman, on a local show and in Washington to say, well, he’s arguing there’s an inherent power where a state legislature has the power to change. The voting processes, that’s not correct, with all due respect, that’s not what the Pennsylvania Constitution says. We’re not talking about inherent authority to delegate or to pass statutes. We’re talking about fundamental law here and what the state constitution specifically says now. The Constitution of Pennsylvania is the supreme law of Pennsylvania. So. It can only be amended if a proposed modification receives a majority vote of two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly. And then is approved by the electorate. Two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, and I might add, then I need to report it in in the state’s newspapers and then the people of the state have an opportunity to vote the people. The state did not have an opportunity to vote. Why? Because the state legislature in Pennsylvania. Added the election changes to an omnibus bill called Act 77. And pass that ominous bill which was quickly signed by the governor of Pennsylvania. So you want to talk about disenfranchising the citizenry and the voters, the government of Pennsylvania disenfranchised the citizenry in the voters, the voters never had an opportunity to vote on this change in the election process. On top of that. Stick with me. On top of that. The governor wanted more. He wanted to weaken the Maryland requirements under the Act 77, which was already unconstitutional. And the state legislature said, no, he wanted. To eliminate the requirement for signatures or signature matching, he wanted to eliminate the requirement for a possible date or whether it’s not clear when the postal date is to count them anyway. He wanted to add three days till Friday, 5:00 p.m. after the Tuesday, eight p.m. close of the election precincts. For receiving and carrying these mail-in ballots, he was given his orders by the Biden campaign and the DNC and the lawyers working for them. Because this is what they’ve tried all over the country. So the state Supreme Court. Not only contributed to the constitutional violation of the state legislature. Because remember, the underlying law was unconstitutional. It then violated a second part of the Constitution, Article two. Section one, clause two, which leaves it to the legislature. To determine Elector’s. More on this in a moment I don’t want to overload in the front here. And they adopted every single demand that the governor had made all Democrats. And this was quite close to election time after the primaries. Now they have an emergency provision. When you have emergency situations, Commonwealth election officials are required to publish notice of a referendum on a proposed amendment and a minimum of two newspapers in every county. And in the event that more than one emergency amendment is proposed, each additional amendment is to be voted on separately. But in each case, whether it’s an emergency or the normal amendment process under the Pennsylvania constitution, that people are to vote. But the people were disenfranchised. They never got an opportunity to vote. And so Congressman Mike Kelly. Candidate Sean Parnell and six other plaintiff’s. Brought a lawsuit. Challenging the constitutionality. Of this act, 77. We’re clearly the governor and the legislature. When around the constitutional limits which have been in place over 150 years, you know, the Pennsylvania legislature is one of the oldest legislatures in the country. And there are very few exceptions. For non in-person voting, very few. And so the Democrats needed to crack this ad using. So they brought a lawsuit. And they requested. An immediate emergency writ of injunction to prevent. The governor of Pennsylvania, the secretary of state of Pennsylvania and any and all other officials from continuing to certify electors. To the Electoral College. Until their constitutional challenge could be heard. Till their constitutional challenge could be heard, they said their goal is to restore the status quo. And ultimately to undo that which has already been certified. And Act 77 was the most expansive and fundamental change, the Pennsylvania election law. In really the history of Pennsylvania, certainly the modern history of Pennsylvania. And what happened? Is that this case was brought in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. And that court that that brave judge, Patricia McKinnon, I believe her name is. She found that the petitioners, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case. And so she she began to intervene with a preliminary injunction. Now, a preliminary injunction means. That looking at all the facts and the law. And just looking at the papers, the judge believes. That the plaintiff will, in fact, win on the merits, on the constitutional merits, and she said so. And she said so should she scheduled a hearing for this past Friday? To allow both sides. To have their day in court, the plaintiffs and the attorney general of Pennsylvania is a big time left wing Democrat. What does the attorney general of Pennsylvania, big left wing Democrat, do? He said, the hell with this, I’m running to my five Democrat friends on the on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, these five there’s seven members on the court, five of whom are radical leftists. Rogue justices, they’re elected they were elected by the labor unions and the teacher unions. That poured in an enormous amount of money when the Republicans weren’t paying attention yet again. They are, in fact, special pleaders for the Democrat Party, in fact, a few years back when it came to gerrymandering, they took the power of gerrymandering away from the Republican legislature, gave it to themselves, redistrict a number of congressmen and I believe two Republican congressmen lost as a result of what that court did. So what did the Supreme Court do, they immediately took up. The motion filed by the Democrat attorney general, remember, this attorney general said if all votes are counted, there’s no way Biden can lose. Remember him? And he was up this time for election, so he had a. In a dog in this race, a dog in this fight. And so literally within 24 or 48 hours, the majority on this court. Issue what’s called a curium opinion. They didn’t hear a single word of testimony, nor did they want to. They issued a rather short opinion and what did they say? Latches. Latches, latches. Unlatches means. Well, this is an untimely case, should have been brought earlier. Should have been brought earlier. Yes. You’re bringing it now because we’ve had an election, that’s not the time to bring this, the time to bring it is before an election. And they also said. That the plaintiffs. Shall not have their day in court that this ruling is final with prejudice. And don’t come back. And they slam the door shut. You following all this, Mr.. Larches. Latches. Here’s the problem with latches. In Pennsylvania, they have some strict standing rules. Standing as a general matter means. You don’t get to go to court and run around and seek declaratory relief all the time. You can only be in front of this court. If you’ve been harmed in some way, are you accusing somebody or some institution of harming you otherwise you don’t have standing? Under Pennsylvania law. Congressman Kelly, candidate Sean Parnell on the other six plaintiffs had no standing if they would have brought this case earlier. They had no standing. They had to wait for the election in order to bring their case. Which is exactly what they did. So according to the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania. You have no right to come to court at all. Because if you don’t have standing before the election and that’s Larches after the election. You can ever be a plaintiff, you can never challenge the constitutionality of the law. This is why I’m furious with some of these so-called legal analysts. In some of these places where they claim to have. Really smart people writing about these laws, they know nothing of what they speak. I’m from Pennsylvania. So now what? Do the plaintiffs do what can they do now? I’ll tell you after the break, we’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
They only have two minutes here, so I’m going to continue this after the bottom of the hour. So let’s say you’re the plaintiff for what they call the petitioner, the complainant, whatever. Where do you go now? That they rogue majority on the state Supreme Court has shut you down. And even one of my former friends writing at a conservative site says the court is on strong standing because he doesn’t understand the rules in Pennsylvania. I just wish these guys would either really dig in or shut the hell up. Because are they just another loss, another loss? Now you understand why take the time to go into these cases as I am this case in my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia excuse me, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where I was born. The heart of liberty, Philadelphia. And look what’s taken place here. Well, in order to bring a case to the United States Supreme Court and have a chance that they will accept your writ. Of surgery is what we call it. And convince four justices to take up the case, you have to have what’s called a federal question. Because the the Supreme Court, with some significant exceptions, won’t just reach into a state and police what’s going on within the state. So what are the arguments, what are the federal questions that are relevant for the U.S. Supreme Court to review? Some of you are ahead of me I know already. Well, when we return, I’ll tell you exactly what they are. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
This tawdry story is now the plaintiffs. Are stuck in the prison of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and that court system. How do they break out? Well, there’s always had to deal with a federal question, you need a federal question or a federal issue. You don’t appeal to the district court or a circuit court. This is an appeal from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court. There’s not only a federal question here, there’s not only important federal question here. There is a grave federal constitutional question here. This relates specifically and directly to how we choose the president and vice president of the United States, let alone members of Congress. Specifically. To the Electoral College. And among other things, we can look at Bush versus Gore. Well, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. Under the great leadership of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, unfortunately, he’s no longer with us. Instead, we get a lightweight by the name of John Roberts. As a general rule, the court wrote, This court defers to a state courts interpretation of a state statute. But in the case of a law enacted by a state legislature applicable not only to elections, to state offices, but also to the selection of presidential electors. The legislature is not acting solely under the authority, given it by the people of the state, but by virtue of a direct grant of authority made under Article two, Section one, Clause two of the United States Constitution, Bush versus Palm Beach County Canvassing Board five thirty one U.S. 1776 2000. When a state legislature therefore violates its state’s constitution. Purportedly in furtherance of its plenary authority to regulate federal elections and appoint electors, it also violates the United States Constitution. Again, from the Bush decision, a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing presidential electors presents a federal constitutional issue. Now, if the legislature. If the legislature itself. If the legislature itself violates its own constitution. It’s in the same place. It’s in the same place. Article one, Section four, and Article two, Section one of the Constitution grant plenary authority to state legislatures. To enact laws that govern the conduct of elections yet. While the legislature may enact laws governing the conduct of elections, no legislative enactment may contravene the requirements. Of the Pennsylvania or United States constitutions, in other words, they have plenary power within their constitutional authority, not beyond it. And because the state legislature failed to strictly comply with the requirements. Of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 11, Section one for amending its constitution. Act 77, no excuse absentee voting provision. Is fatally defective. And unconstitutional under state and federal law. Now, as for the Supreme Court’s decision of Pennsylvania. It violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and due process clause, as applies to the eight plaintiffs. Basically, they’re barred access to the courts forever in perpetuity. It’s a clear violation of the right to petition the government for redress. And that right of access to judicial proceedings is a component of the right to petition government that is upheld under the federal constitution. And I want to circle back to this issue of latches, you were too late. In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s use of that is erroneous. That’s also subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court not to get into the nitty gritty, but. This case involves not only a federally created right, but a federal right for which the sole remedy is inequity. In other words, a court takes up the case and looks at it. Makes a decision based on the law and based on reason. The duty is that of federal court sitting as national courts throughout the country. To apply their own principles in enforcing equitable right? As again, the Supreme Court wrote in Bush versus Gore in 2000, we deal here not with an ordinary election, but as an election for the president of the United States. And they said in the context of a presidential election, state imposed restrictions simply had a uniquely important national interests for president and vice president of the United States. The only elected officials who represent all the voters of the nation. A significant departure from this legislative scheme represents a federal constitutional question. The text of the election law itself and not justice interpretation by the courts of the states takes on independent significance. Whether the state court has denied has denied rights asserted under local law, the protection of which the Constitution guarantees is a question upon which. The petitioners are entitled, that’s a separate Supreme Court decision and so forth. Now, let’s go back to this latches issue, which is what the state Supreme Court held its hat on in which, oh, yes, it’s a lachs issue, no question about that. They’re too late. I already told you. That they could not have met the standards for standing in the first place, they had to wait for a harm. The harm was the election. They came in soon thereafter and now they’re told, too late. You should have come in earlier. So under Pennsylvania law, there’s two elements for latches, No. One. A delay arising from appellant’s failure to exercise due diligence, that’s clearly not this and to prejudice to the appellate court resulting from the delay that is prejudice to the secretary of state, the governor and so forth, that that’s clearly not the case. That’s clearly not the case. So even when it comes to the issue of so-called latches. The state Supreme Court. Just on the issue of Lachs was wrong. In plain English. The five rogue Democrat elected. Labor boss, judges or justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court knew exactly what they were doing. They know exactly what they were doing. And if the U.S. Supreme Court does not step in. And address this. Then the electors will be sent the certificate of ascertainment and what is called be sent to the archivist will then in turn collect them all from the states and send them to a joint session of Congress by statute meets on January 6th, the new Congress. To count the votes. The Pennsylvania electors will be tainted. Because they will be there in violation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court excuse me, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. They will be tainted because they will be there in violation of the Pennsylvania constitution. And meanwhile, people who say, let’s move along, let’s get over it. If this isn’t fixed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it’ll come up again in the next election. That is, it will constantly be a recycling of an unconstitutional act every time there’s a vote in this key battleground state. Let’s get on with it right here. Marc Thiessen and others, nice guy. Good man. Let’s get on with it. Trump can run in 2024. He could be Grover Cleveland in here. My dear friend Victor Davis Hanson. Like Andrew Jackson, you know, he may take. No, no, no, no, no. The fix is in for the future, too. For the next election. The fix is in. If this isn’t resolved. Donald Trump got 74 million votes, he got 11 million more votes than before he got more votes than any man in history, except supposedly now Joe Biden. Nobody’s going to perform like that again. You want House seats, you held on to a Senate, even though 23 of 33 seats were up. And of course, we have Georgia, but I’m not talking about Georgia right now, I’m talking about what is what is. This is going to happen again. He’s the most popular Republican to run for president since Ronald Reagan had his massive landslide. There’s no question about it. And even he couldn’t get enough votes. Can outrun the changes in Pennsylvania, notice this. I’m not even arguing fraud here in this case. My mystery producer. I don’t need one example of fraud because the fraud is the court. The fraud is the court, that’s a separate case, this case I’m talking about wasn’t even brought by the Trump campaign. It was brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, courageous, Sean Parnell, courageous, and six other plaintiffs. They brought this case themselves. This is part of the Trump campaign. And to me, this is one of the most important cases. Of all the cases in the United States. One of them. It goes it determines whether we are still a constitutional republic or not. In addition to the issues of whether or not we have a legitimate vote, don’t get me wrong, those are key cases. Those are key cases. So you had a rogue act by a legislature. Ever rogue decision by five Democrats on the Supreme Court, and the question is whether it will be tainted now, you might say, well, Mark, what do you expect them to do? There are two and a half, two point six million Maylin votes. What are you saying we should disenfranchise all those people? Mark? Is that what you actually expect these justices to do? Mark? I expect these justices to uphold the United States Constitution. They do not need to fashion any relief. They should uphold the United States Constitution and send the matter back. To the Pennsylvania state legislature. Because in the end. These are political decisions within the context. Of the state and federal constitution. The Supreme Court doesn’t have to fashion any remedy other than upholding the Constitution of the United States. Which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is bastardizing. Which the Pennsylvania legislature has bastardise. The question is, will the Supreme Court allow them to get away with it? The Supreme Court did not allow the Florida Supreme Court to get away with it. And in the end, it’ll be up to Congress because, like it or not, media, like it or not, National Review, like it or not, Trump haters and all the rest. In our country in the end. The Congress counts the electors. And the Congress makes the final decision, we’re not a direct democracy, we never have been. Although we’re turning into one. I hope these past 45 minutes have explained this one case to you. Why these are serious battles and according to National Review and others. According to the Democrats, according to Republicans across the country. They should throw in the towel and allow allow this injustice to stand. Is that what you believe, ladies and gentlemen? Well, I don’t think so. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Some might argue bookmark article two gives the state legislature plenary power in the federal constitutional context, so it doesn’t so a state can violate its own constitution all at once and can do whatever it wants. Pretty much. It can do pretty much whatever it wants. No, it can’t. Is that what the framers of the Constitution said? The states were creating a federal government, the states were creating a manner in which you would choose electors. And they came up with a rather complex process. To protect us from factions, to protect us from from the mob. They never would have dreamed that a state would violate its own constitution. Never would have dreamt that a state would violate its own constitution. For the purposes of exercising plenary power under Article two, because what are the limits of that, there are no limits. There’s no evidence to support that whatsoever. That’s number one. Number two, this does not, in fact, empower the courts to do whatever they want, that’s irrational to no logical argument. The court. Only has the power, what the court’s supposed to do, judicial review, not legislative authority, even within the state. So my view that makes no sense either. And so I take strong objection to those two points. That a state is free to do whatever it wants, including violating its own constitution in order to. Send electors and as a matter of fact, let me just say this, that’s not been the practice of states. There have been a couple of examples, the. The court in in in Florida in 2000, not the legislature, then the court. And now Pennsylvania, we have the state legislature and the court. So states have. With rare exception, over the entire period that we’ve had this constitution. Have violated their own constitutions for the purpose of choosing electors. So I get the abstract arguments and so forth, but that’s what they are, their abstract. The rap stretched so no, so no, in my view, anyway, state legislatures cannot violate their own constitution for the purposes of serving the federal constitution. Particularly when they have precise election laws, precise provisions in their constitution about how they’re going about it. I’ll be right back.