Read on Twitter
Reassurance Thread:
Don't worry about this. This is @SenMastriano - a far-right figure first elected last year proposing something which simply wouldn't be legal or, potentially, possible.
It's deeply unserious posturing from a deeply unserious person. https://twitter.com/benaspeolymath/status/1332416243995959297
Don't worry about this. This is @SenMastriano - a far-right figure first elected last year proposing something which simply wouldn't be legal or, potentially, possible.
It's deeply unserious posturing from a deeply unserious person. https://twitter.com/benaspeolymath/status/1332416243995959297
First of all, this is a freshman state senator, and there's no indication that the joker has the clout to get his resolution to the floor, let alone passed.
Beyond that...
Beyond that...
There is substantial reason to doubt that the PA state legislature could do this through a joint resolution; it is extremely likely that they would need to pass a law, which would be subject to veto.
They are hoping that the language of Article 2 of the Constitution helps them.
They are hoping that the language of Article 2 of the Constitution helps them.
The problem they have there is that the Supreme Court already ruled, in the context of the Article 1 Elections clause, that the grant of power to the legislature is subject to the state's own constitution and lawmaking policy.
Smiley v. Holm, 285 US 355, 367-68 (1932).
Smiley v. Holm, 285 US 355, 367-68 (1932).
So the State Legislature probably lacks the power to do that unilaterally. Even if they can, it's too late.
3 USC 1 establishes Election Day as the day upon which Presidential electors shall be appointed. Linear time bars the PA leg from simply appointing a slate of electors.
3 USC 1 establishes Election Day as the day upon which Presidential electors shall be appointed. Linear time bars the PA leg from simply appointing a slate of electors.
In order to get past that, the state leg would have to try to declare that the election failed under 3 USC 2. In addition to that setting up conflicting slates of electors and stuff @greg_doucette has discussed, there's a bigger problem. They'd have to declare themselves illegal.
That's not an exaggeration. Passing such a joint resolution would mean that the PA General Assembly that *passed* said resolution was not validly elected and very likely lacks the power to pass such a resolution.
Bit of a paradox there, what?
Bit of a paradox there, what?
Remember, it's not like there's one race on the ballot. There are lots. In PA, every seat in the lower house of the leg and half the upper was also elected on the same ballots. You can't just say "we don't like the Presidential results and only those are fraud."
If one race goes down, they all do.
And the new legislature? The one that would have to pass this dimbulb's resolution? They get seated Tuesday. By law.
And the new legislature? The one that would have to pass this dimbulb's resolution? They get seated Tuesday. By law.
So if they pass this resolution, which is apparently still not finished being drafted, on Monday, there's no state leg on Tuesday. And if they try to pass it Tuesday or any day thereafter, they're declaring themselves to be illegally elected.
So this is another "breathe" moment.
The goofball rambling on to the schmuck who got arrested by postal inspectors on a boat isn't going to flip Pennsylvania for Trump.
He's a deplorably unserious twerp trying to scare you. That's all.
/fin
The goofball rambling on to the schmuck who got arrested by postal inspectors on a boat isn't going to flip Pennsylvania for Trump.
He's a deplorably unserious twerp trying to scare you. That's all.
/fin
