Mike 03
Mike 03's JournalExcellent. Here's the statement:
Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of
last month’s election and deliver the state’s electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule
of law forbids us to do that.
Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis made their case here at least twice—on Monday, at an unofficial public
gathering hosted by a small group of legislators; and again on Tuesday, during a closed-door
meeting at the State Capitol with Republican leaders from both chambers of the Legislature. Both
times, the Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only
theories, not proof. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that he, too, has “not
seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome of the election.”
Even if such evidence existed, the Arizona Legislature simply couldn’t do what is being asked.
Under our state’s constitution, the Legislature can act only when it is in session, and the Legislature
could call itself into a special session only with the support of a bipartisan supermajority of its
members.
That won’t materialize, but even if did, the Legislature couldn’t provide the recourse the
President’s team seeks. The U.S. Constitution authorizes each state to appoint presidential electors
“in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” For decades, Arizona law has required
that the voters elect the state’s electors on Election Day—this year, on November 3rd. And under
a law the Republican-led Legislature passed just three years ago, the state’s electors are required
to cast their votes for the candidates who received the most votes in the official statewide election
canvass. Enacted after the 2016 presidential election, in which President Trump won the electoral
college but not the popular vote, the law was aimed at ensuring that Arizona’s electors would
remain faithful to the vote of the people.
Our state’s canvass was completed on Monday, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris received the
most votes, so those are the candidates whom the state’s presidential electors must vote for.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court even suggests that the
Arizona Legislature could retroactively appoint different electors who would cast their ballots for
2 different candidates. The Trump legal team has cited McPherson v. Blacker (1892), to claim that
the legislature can “resume the power [to appoint electors] at any time.” And it is true that the
Arizona Legislature could alter the method of appointing electors prospectively. But it cannot
undo the election of electors whom the voters already voted for. As the Supreme Court made clear
in Bush v. Gore (2000), “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its
people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.”
No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then
Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does
not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.
As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for
President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion
that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.
I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and
laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican
government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported
theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins,
and our system requires that their choice be respected.
Forty years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that while the “orderly transfer
of authority” is a “commonplace occurrence” for Americans, “n the eyes of many in the world,
this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” Now, Americans
are being reminded once again never to take for granted what President Reagan correctly described
as “the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.”
https://www.azleg.gov/press/house/54LEG/2R/201204STATEMENT.pdf
I think it is permitted to post the entire letter since it is a press release and public statement.
Maybe it had to do with this issue in 1955. "Not properly inactivated"
In April 1955, soon after mass polio vaccination began in the US, the Surgeon General began to receive reports of patients who contracted paralytic polio about a week after being vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine from Cutter pharmaceutical company, with the paralysis limited to the limb the vaccine was injected into. The Cutter vaccine had been used in vaccinating 200,000 children in the western and midwestern United States.[76] Later investigations showed that the Cutter vaccine had caused 40,000 cases of polio, killing 10.[76] In response the Surgeon General pulled all polio vaccine made by Cutter Laboratories from the market, but not before 250 cases of paralytic illness had occurred. Wyeth polio vaccine was also reported to have paralyzed and killed several children. It was soon discovered that some lots of Salk polio vaccine made by Cutter and Wyeth had not been properly inactivated, allowing live poliovirus into more than 100,000 doses of vaccine. In May 1955, the National Institutes of Health and Public Health Services established a Technical Committee on Poliomyelitis Vaccine to test and review all polio vaccine lots and advise the Public Health Service as to which lots should be released for public use. These incidents reduced public confidence in polio vaccine, leading to a drop in vaccination rates.[77]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine
Maybe if this person understands why it happened, and why it couldn't happen again, it would help with his understanding and confidence in modern vaccine science.
My dad had a polio scare but it was before the vaccine was invented.
That's a new one on me.
I know about the Simian Virus 40 contamination issue, but haven't heard of people getting polio from the Salk vaccine, which to my knowledge is inactivated.
Wasn't there an issue with an unrelated vaccine, a Sabin infectious attenuated polio vaccine? I don't know the details.
I always wanted to know more about the SV40 issue, since that is apparently a real issue for people who received it.
Association Between Simian Virus 40 and Human Tumors
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2019.00670/full
FYI. Here's Michael J. Fox's new book
No Time Like the Future: An Optimist Considers Mortality Hardcover – November 17, 2020
https://www.amazon.com/Time-Like-Future-Considers-Mortality/dp/1250265614
Thanks for posting. I didn't know he'd written a new book.
I've always thought his work in Bright Lights, Big City and Casualties of War was great, and I wish he'd written more about those movies in his first memoir. Some have linked his work on that second film to his parkinson's, saying that he and others on the crew were exposed to massive doses of pesticides during production. But it's really a guessing game trying to determine how a person gets the horrible disease.
This is very interesting.
Thank you.
This is perverse thought, but I wonder if conditions like sleep apnea confer some cellular and neuroprotective effects that might offset the damage. Who knew oxygen deprivation could be neuroprotective?
I've been thinking about this too, especially after reading "Unholy" by
Sarah Posner. She writes in that book about how the Alt Right, the White Supremacists and the Christian Nationalists found common ground to coalesce around Trump, with a little prodding from far right billionaires and foreign interlopers in Russia, Hungary and other Eastern European countries who would love to see our Democracy collapse.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat points out in her new book Strongmen that it is more difficult to break up a coalition when it is united around a single "personalist authoritarian" (unless, of course, his power collapses). That means it is gathered around a charismatic leader rather than policy, ideology or principle.
But I strongly agree we should look for weak spots. One, according to Sarah Posner, is U.S. foreign policy with respect to Israel. I can't think of a way to 'exploit' that weakness without really playing with fire, though.
This needs to be tested in court.
Yes, most good attorneys attempt to have charges dismissed against their clients, for all sorts of reasons.
Many authorities on the Constitution disagree that a President can, in essence, serve as the judge and jury of his own conduct by granting himself a pardon, or abusing the privilege of granting pardons if it clearly conflicts with his sworn oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
So one of the questions at issue is, When does granting a pardon become obstruction of justice? And that, frankly, is only one of a number of questions at issue.
Another important issue is, What is the intended meaning of "granting"?
Bitterly sad and ironic
So based on this specific action, one would argue that Arthur C. Clarke was right about our species and that Kubrick was mistaken.
Arthur C. Clarke's original ending for 2001 was far more pessimistic and predicted we would not evolve but would destroy ourselves.
Kubrick rejected it and went with the optimistic prediction that we would transcend our basest stupidities.
Andrew Cuomo gave a speech on something called "Living Room Spread"
in which he asserted domestic gatherings were what he was most worried about. I don't know the science behind it, but isn't "length of time in the same place with others" a growing factor of concern? Remember those bus and restaurant (and church) studies?
I recall another study that claimed that many very brief exposures (while wearing a mask) over a period of time might be a good way to build antibodies without actually getting sick. But it was just one study and I never heard more about it.
Excellent analogy.
Also, when von Papen and General Schleicher were getting cold feet about the idea of Hitler being made Chancellor, he threatened them with "civil war" from his alleged "2 million" SA and millions of angry, impatient supporters if they did not go forward. At that point, the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Modesto California
Home country: United States
Current location: Arizona
Member since: Mon Oct 27, 2008, 06:14 PM
Number of posts: 16,616
