Tillis endorses DC power-grab

Never let a good crisis go to waste.  That’s a quote attributed to Obama’s once-chief of staff.

Leftists have been following that rule for a long time.  Hitler used The Reichstag Fire of 1933 to get the people behind his evil agenda.  Woodrow Wilson used the sinking of the RMS Lusitania to get us into World War I. Lyndon Johnson used the Tonkin Gulf incident to get us into Vietnam.

Now we have the “January 6 INSURGENCY” — which has never been honestly investigated — being used as an excuse to push through major legislation.

The Electoral Count reform is being pushed through Congress with the aid of the likes of Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and a bunch of Democrats.  The original Electoral Count Act of 1887 detailed the process for ratifying a presidential election.  The pack of RINOs and Dems pushing this so-called reform say the 1887 law is “outdated” and needs changing to “avoid another January 6.”

How long before some DC types start talking about the language in The Constitution being “outdated”  and needing, um, “reform”?

How many more dubious laws are going to be rammed down our throats in the name of “avoiding another January 6”? The January 6 incident has never been honestly investigated.  (There’s a really good film out there pointing out some things the media and the establishment have overlooked or kept from us.)

Establishment outlets like Raleigh’s John Locke, The National Review and DC’s American Enterprise Institute are singing the reform’s praises — joining a multitude of lefties.

Retired federal judge Mike Luttig and former Bush White House counsel David Rivkin co-authored an interesting piece questing the constitutionality of the reform legislation and “need” to federalize American elections:

[…] As we pointed out in our op-ed “Congress Sowed the Seeds of Jan. 6 in 1887” (March 19, 2021), the Framers, after much debate, determined to give Congress no substantive authority to select the president and vice president, except in the rare instance in which no candidate gains an Electoral College majority. The Constitution’s Electors Clause gives state legislatures plenary authority in choosing how to select electors. It allows Congress to determine only the day on which the Electoral College casts its votes.

The Framers’ choice reflected separation-of-powers considerations—if Congress could select the president, this would make the executive branch a subordinate, and not a coequal, branch. This would greatly augment the power of the federal legislature, which the Framers were determined to limit. Moreover, disputes over the selection of presidential electors involve a legal, not a political, discernment, that is appropriate for a judicial body. Congress is not a court.

To the extent that disputes about presidential electors arise, they can be resolved by courts. When state legislatures determine the manner of selecting electors, they exercise power granted to them by the U.S. Constitution, making these determinations a unique species of federal law. Hence, any disputes about specific selection of presidential electors involve the application of federal law. Since the power to determine what federal law requires rests with the judiciary, the federal courts have the primary responsibility to resolve these disputes.

To facilitate timely resolution, Congress should enact a statute providing for an expeditious judicial handling of any presidential elector-related challenges, with the Supreme Court as ultimate decision maker. The only power that Congress legitimately possesses here is a purely ministerial authority to receive the letters featuring certified state electoral results, have them opened by the vice president and counted in the presence of both houses. Congress should amend the Electoral Count Act to reflect this constitutional reality. Holding itself out as able to overturn the people’s will and choose the president will add to political polarization and inspire future violence, putting Congress itself at risk.[…]