>>14168479 ///Karen Fann Has Authority
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER: Karen Fann Has Authority, With Arizona House, To Decertify Fraudulent Election "We don't have to live with a fraudulent election." Constitutional attorney John Eastman revealed a path for the Arizona State legislature to legally decertify a fraudulent election in Arizona. “We don’t have to live with a fraudulent election,” said Eastman on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast.
As it becomes clearer that the 2020 election in Arizona was likely fraudulent, as revealed by the forensic audit of Maricopa County that confirmed enough voting irregularities and evidence of fraud that have brought the original outcome of the election into question, all eyes are on Arizona Senate President Karen Fann. Even while Arizona state legislators continue their calls for the Arizona Senate to decertify the 2020 election due to the evidence of widespread of the voter fraud, Fann recently made a statement claiming that the Senate body doesn’t have the authority to do so. “The Senate body — we do not have the authority to do that. So, this is what we have said, and I want to make this very clear on the record,” Fann said. However, constitutional lawyer John Eastman went on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast to explain that “there is ample authority to fix this problem.” “We are in uncharted territory, but there are a couple of things to point to,” began Eastman. “We can point to the Hawaii Election of 1960, when the Governor subsequently certified another slate of electors after they discovered error in the initial certification.” (READ MORE: Arizona Audit Finds Enough Tainted Ballots To Erase Biden’s Lead As Senators Call To Decertify Election) “We can point to Section 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code that says when a state has had an election, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, which is, you know, the choice that was made. The assumption was that it was fraudulently given because of illegal votes. The electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such manner as the legislature of such state may direct,” Eastman continued. “So that recognizes the authority of the Legislature to fix a problem. “We also have a backdrop of Common Law, which is, when you have a fraud, the actions taken pursuant to the fraud, are unraveled after discovery of the fraud. If the evidence really does come in as definitive, that the election and the electorals cast from Arizona were fraudulently given, and they should have been given in the other direction, then I think there is ample authority to fix this problem,” Eastman said. “We don’t have to live with a fraudulent election.” https://nationalfile.com/constitutional-lawyer-karen-fann-has-authority-with-arizona-house-to-decertify-fraudulent-election/
GOP Excoriates Antony Blinken for Requesting Probe on U.S. Racism by Pro-Critical Race Theory U.N. Envoy
Members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) slammed Secretary of State Antony Blinken for inviting a pro-Critical Race Theory (CRT) United Nations envoy to investigate human rights abuses in America, Breitbart News learned Monday.
In a bid to combat what Blinken describes as U.S. failures at home, the secretary extended unrequested invitations last Tuesday to two U.N. experts, one on racism and the other on minority issues, to make an official U.S. visit and scrutinize America’s human rights record.
Wife Of GOP Congressman Called Supporters ‘Trump Cult’, Compared Trump To Hitler After Husband’s Impeachment Vote
Is this how the Republican from South Carolina really feels about his voters?
In an email obtained by National File, Wrenzie Rice, the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC), described supporters of President Donald Trump as members of the “Trump cult” and likened the 45th President to genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler, one of the most evil villains in history.
Just days after Rep. Tom Rice voted to impeach President Trump for his alleged role in the mostly peaceful protests that erupted at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, his wife received a note of support for her husband’s planned vote, and in response referred to President Trump’s supporters as the “Trump cult” and likened the 45th President to Hitler. Wrenzie Rice also promised that he would not waiver in his support for impeachment. National File
also understands the person Wrenzie Rice communicated with was not a constituent of her husband. National File obtained the email from a senior South Carolina Republican Party official.
“Thank you [REDACTED],” wrote Wrenzie Rice. “Thank you for the nice note of support and encouragement. Tom has not waivered one bit on his vote, but the Trump cult runs strong. Sometimes I wonder if this is how Hitler came to power – we very much appreciate your prayers! Note will be sent to Tom. Thanks again, Wrenzie (his wife)”.
Tom Rice, who was one of only a handful of Republicans who voted to impeach the 45th President at his second impeachment trial, later defended his decision to vote to impeach President Trump in an interview with The Washington Post. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I didn’t take an oath to defend Donald Trump,” said Rice. The sitting House Representative went on to suggest that President Trump was behaving like a “dictator”, but unlike his wife, stopped short of comparing him to Hitler. “What he did in my mind is what dictators do,” said Rice.
Rep. Rice was censured by the South Carolina Republican Party for his vote to impeach President Trump only days after it was cast, with South Carolina GOP Chair Drew McKissick releasing a statement describing Rice as “disappointing the Party and our Seventh Congressional District.” McKissick added, “We made our disappointment clear the night of the impeachment vote. Trying to impeach a president, with a week left in his term, is never legitimate and is nothing more than a political kick on the way out the door.” He added, “Congressman Rice’s vote unfortunately played right into the Democrats’ game, and the people in his district, and ultimately our State Executive Committee, wanted him to know they wholeheartedly disagree with his decision.”
US senators Sanders, Murphy & Lee introduce bipartisan bill to rein in presidential war powers & foreign weapons deals A bipartisan group of US senators has introduced sweeping reforms of executive war-making authority and rules governing arms sales and national emergencies, in an effort to claw back congressional powers from the White House. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) put forward the National Security Powers Act on Tuesday – the latest effort to curtail presidential war powers, which have steadily accrued to the executive branch over several decades.
I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world, and the time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace. https://t.co/YHK4YoJyDo — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 20, 2021 The lawmakers said the act had three main goals: clarifying and amending the original War Powers Resolution; reforming arms export regulations in a way that would require Congress to “affirmatively authorize” certain foreign weapons sales; and altering rules around national emergencies to prevent presidents from “exploiting a crisis to increase executive authority.” Enacted in 1973 during the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution was meant to place a check on the White House’s ability to commit the country to armed conflict without lawmakers’ consent. However, as the US Constitution specifies that Congress must proactively declare a war, the Resolution effectively watered down that provision, allowing for armed action with a mere Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which falls short of an outright declaration. The new legislation would define key terms left unclear in the original War Powers Resolution, namely the meaning of “hostilities.” The senators said the word “has been interpreted so narrowly by the Executive branch that key aspects of the [War Powers Resolution] became almost meaningless.” The bill would also add “teeth” to the resolution by automatically cutting off war funding unless the president secured Congressional approval, the senators said. While lawmakers currently require a veto-proof majority to terminate unauthorized military action, the bill would instead force the White House to obtain “specific statutory authorization” to keep a war going. https://www.rt.com/usa/529785-bipartisan-bill-war-powers/
Federal judge blocks Arkansas from enforcing near total ban on abortions
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the state of Arkansas from enforcing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, a law the Republican governor previously said was intended as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker, an Obama appointee, said the law was "categorically unconstitutional" in her court order issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent it from taking effect on July 28. The law would have banned all abortions in the state of Arkansas, including in cases of rape or incest, with the only exception being the rare instance when the life of the mother is in danger. She said the plaintiffs, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, were "likely to succeed on the merits" of their argument that the Arkansas law bans abortions before the unborn child could survive outside the womb and is therefore unconstitutional given Supreme Court precedent. "Defendants do not make any argument to the contrary and concede that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits," Baker wrote. "Instead, defendants argue that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. As a federal district court, this Court 'is bound by the Supreme Court's decisions in Casey.' Accordingly, the Act is categorically unconstitutional, and plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to succeed on the merits. "Defendants make no argument as to whether or not plaintiffs or plaintiffs' patients will experience irreparable harm. Since the record at this stage of the proceedings indicates that women seeking abortions in Arkansas face an imminent threat to their constitutional rights, the court concludes that they will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief," she added.
The plaintiffs in the case applauded the decision.
"We're relieved that the court has blocked another cruel and harmful attempt to criminalize abortion care and intrude on Arkansans' deeply personal medical decisions," ACLU of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson said, according to the Associated Press. Brandon Hill, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, added the decision "demonstrates that the court fully understands the harmful and immediate effects this law would have on Arkansans."
Arkansas Republicans were clear that the intention of the near-total ban on abortions was to advance to the Supreme Court and directly challenge precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion. Speaking in March, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) said the "whole design" of the law was to go before the Supreme Court after President Donald Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which purportedly created a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. "It is not constitutional under Supreme Court cases right now," Hutchinson said at the time. "I signed it because it is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. That was the intent of it." Arkansas has enacted 20 pro-life laws this year, the most of any state since 1978. In 2019, Hutchinson signed a law that would ban abortions in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Another 2019 Arkansas law that would ban abortions after 18 weeks into a woman's pregnancy and ban selective abortions of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome was temporarily blocked in January amid an ongoing legal challenge. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging a Mississippi law that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions. The expected landmark decision could determine whether it is legal to outlaw abortions before an unborn baby could survive outside the womb, which is generally considered to occur at 22 weeks or later. https://www.theblaze.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-arkansas-abortion-ban