Video: GOP Rep. McCarthy Claims That He Has A Signed Letter From Arizona Legislators Invoking Article 2, Section 1 Of The United States Constitution Which Means That We Have A Contested Outcome In Arizona

Republican members of the Arizona State Legislature had an election integrity hearing on Nov. 30 that included President Donald Trump’s lawyers Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani, Ellis, and others held a hearing in front of Pennsylvania State Republican senators on earlier, where they argued that the state legislature should take steps to reclaim the ability to appoint electors to the Electoral College. Witnesses who claimed they saw allegedly illegal or irregular vote-tabulation efforts in the Keystone State also offered statements.

According to GOP members of the Arizona State Legislature, the hearing is designed “to gather the evidence that justifies calling a special session to contemplate what happened and take immediate action accordingly.”

“We are pleased that the State Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan will be convening hearings to examine the November 3rd presidential election,” Ellis said in a statement provided by the GOP lawmakers.

Meanwhile, like some GOP senators in Pennsylvania have said, the Arizona lawmakers noted that the U.S. Constitution grants state legislatures the power to hold election hearings on alleged irregularities and fraud.

Yesterday GOP Rep. Daniel McCarthy dropped a real bombshell around midnight.

He claims to have a signed letter from Arizona Legislators invoking Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution which means we have a contested outcome in Arizona.

The Constitution Article 2 gives the power of Federal elections laws of that State solely to that States Legislators. This election Governors, Secretary of States, and State Judges decided to take it upon themselves to make the laws about the elections

A video from Daniel McCarthy where the whole situation is further explained by him:

This news was under-reported and is not getting any headlines so we looking for confirmation elsewhere!

You would think that was a pretty big story right? We did some searches on Google and DuckDuckGo. Here are the two results. Google has buried the stories.

McCarthy also tweeted:

Do you think DonaldTrump needs to know about this?

Do you think the opposition within his own admin do their best to hide this from him?

Would the following Patriots help get the message to him.


Update:
House Majority Leader Warren Petersen made a press release about the election results:
“The election should not have been certified with the number of irregularities and allegations of fraud. Especially troubling to me are the allegations surrounding the vendor Dominion. It is imperative that a forensic audit occur immediately of the equipment and software. Upon any showing of fraud the legislature should immediately convene to decertify the vote.”

According to Arizona law, only the governor or two-thirds of the state legislature can call a special session to choose the state’s presidential electors.
The U.S. Constitution however allows the state legislature to choose electors, which could supersede the state law for calling special sessions.

Members who have signed on to the statement:

Sen. Sonny Borrelli
Sen. David Livingston
Sen. David Farnsworth
Sen. David Gowan
Sen. Sylvia Allen
Sen. Sine Kerr
Sen. Tyler Pace
Rep. Warren Petersen
Rep. Travis Grantham
Rep. Leo Biasucci
Rep. Walter Blackman
Rep. Nancy Barto
Rep. Kelly Townsend
Rep. Anthony Kern
Rep. Bret Roberts
Rep. Kevin Payne
Rep. Mark Finchem
Rep. David Cook
Rep. Bob Thorpe
Rep. John Fillmore
Sen-Elect Rogers
Rep-Elect Hoffman
Rep-Elect Kaiser
Rep-Elect Wilmeth
Rep-Elect Parker
Rep-Elect Burges
Rep-Elect Barton
Rep-Elect Nguyen

As Interactive Constitution reported the Electors do possess the legal prerogative to vote as they wish, and under extraordinary circumstances, they might exercise that prerogative to change the expected outcome dictated by popular election returns.

The colloquially-named Electoral College arises from Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, which state that:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Under the further original provisions of Article II, Electors cast ballots not for one candidate for president but for two, with the second-place finisher becoming vice-president. No one originally expected that there would be national parties that nominated candidates and slated a ticket for president and vice-president. The strange two-vote feature nevertheless led almost immediately to a serious political crisis in the election of 1800 when Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams 73-65 in the Electoral College but then tied his own nominal running mate, Aaron Burr, 73-73. The mischievous Burr refused to stand down in the face of this embarrassing constitutional glitch, thus throwing the process into the U.S. House of Representatives under the so-called “contingent election” procedures in which each state’s U.S. House of Representatives delegation casts a single vote for president and the winner of the majority becomes president. The resulting contingent election in the House became a nightmare of its own when the lame-duck Federalist-controlled Congress took an exhausting six days and 36 ballots to choose Jefferson, who the Federalists ultimately considered the lesser of two evils.

The most glaring early bugs in the system—the real possibility of ties, the fact that the president and vice-president could represent different political parties as had happened when Adams and Jefferson served together in 1796—were ironed out by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. But our unique Electoral College system has continued to shape the country’s politics in fundamental ways that both supporters and critics would agree depart from democratic norms.

Under Article II, the states are allotted a number of Electors equal to their Congressional delegation, which is the number of Representatives plus two for the Senators, but the actual Electors are appointed according to rules set exclusively by the state legislatures themselves. Today, 48 states appoint all of their Electors on a “winner take all” basis from slates provided by the top vote-getter in their statewide popular election for president. But two states—Maine and Nebraska—award the Electors by Congressional District and give their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner. Historically, there has been an even more dizzying variety in the systems developed in each state. In the first presidential election, five state legislatures—in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina—themselves simply designated presidential Electors without having any popular election at all. In four states, the voters elected all of the Electors. In Virginia, which had ten congressional districts, the General Assembly divided the Commonwealth into twelve presidential districts and conducted a popular election. In subsequent elections, there have been statewide elections, elections of Electors from single-member districts that mirror Congressional districts, elections of Electors from specially designed multi-member districts, elections in which only the Electors’ names appear on the ballot but not the names of the presidential candidates, elections in which the presidential candidates’ names appear on the ballot but not the names of the Electors, and even elections where the state legislatures have chosen not to appoint any Electors.

All of these variations are allowable under the constitutional design.

Natalie Dagenhardt

Natalie Dagenhardt is an American conservative writer who writes for  Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot," and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do," drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a "constitutional conservative".