BREAKING: President Trump and 18 States File at Supreme Court

Breaking news the President involves an intervention report 18 states while brief in support of texts live from Washington DC Judy secular resident from very drastic about this case. That is why he asked the Supreme Court yesterday to intervene in the case as a private citizen and as President of the United States. The President's campaign to get a statement yesterday saying because the President intervened because his rights as a candidate are affected by the defendant states failure to follow it in for state election laws during the 2020 election.

Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110 17 other states to join the case. In addition to Pres. drop as you mentioned as a spotted state had gotten till 3 o'clock this afternoon to file their briefs with the Supreme Court and now chief counsel for the Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow broadcasts. Let's get right to it states is filed a motion to intervene at the Supreme Court in the case involving Texas and for states.

Remember we talked about the case yesterday. Usually Texas is bombing of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin also. 17 states have filed briefs in support of Texas and in the case is changed drastically in the last 24 hours yes it has. This is now a very not that it wasn't good to begin with a serious piece of litigation, but now is a piece of litigation that has garnered national attention we have. I think with the 17 states that have come in into this case. Now a system of substantial number of jurisdictions who are supporting the position of Texas that the choice of electors in the jurisdictions that are named as defendants was in violation of the state laws pertaining to how you choose Presidential electors and therefore it diluted the vote of Texas and therefore violated the equal protection of the laws. So now we have J along with Texas, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah and West Virginia and late last night, Arizona filed a motion for leave to come in to assert substantially similar arguments but to really urge the Supreme Court of the United States not to simply exercise its jurisdiction, but to exercise it in fact mandatory, and to come into this case and to solve the national chaos that has ensued so well is very important piece of litigation. I think it's not being us really focused on in the national media as it should be because it is and could be outcome determinative if they take it and in others briefs are coming in tomorrow, but if in fact they take the case grant jurisdiction Harry at that point the case is outcome determinative absolutely and set up a coup, but it is outcome determined absolutely. So the four defendant states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and I just forgot another one.

They totaled 60 Wisconsin. They totaled 62 elect oral votes so this case is indeed rock outcome determinative and it is clear beyond question that the constitutional issue surrounding article 2 of the Constitution. The elect so-called electors clause is in play and each and every state in the United States has an interest in this particular case going before the United States because, to the extent that state a engages in misconduct, in violation of the United States Constitution that then dilutes the boat each and every citizen and each and every state in the next segment broadcasts were to go through what the states are arguing and what the states in support of the state of Texas are doing as well as what the pet presents basis for intervention is you will find that this is questions of law so it's not the not really electioneering or election fraud.

It's it's questions of law get into that. How does that apply.

What is it mean take your calls. Also, 800-684-3110. Don't forget when a matching challenge here@theacljdissipatedaclj.org agreement you donate. We get a matching gift for that's ACLJ.org lot of action at the Supreme Court. The other sides briefs due tomorrow.

The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous support to Courtney and her matching challenge today make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family a beautiful gift today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is certainly protect.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/your lodging on any of our social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, rumble periscope from leaving something out obligor on YouTube which would start again a lot of people watching on you to let me encourage you to subscribe, you go right over there to the many on the are you ACLJ page watching the broadcast. Right now you are just hit subscribe and then there's a bell and if you hit the bell. Also, that will give you notification whenever we come live. So we encourage you to do that again that's just hit subscribe and and then the bell that'll be great. Sipping facebooking at a subscribe on that as well. Alright let's set a limit. Let me break out again. What is happened salute initially on God Tuesday the right Monday night Tuesday morning, the state of Texas filed a bill of complaint with original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States. What that means is the case does not go through the District Court. The Court of Appeals and into this report, it is. It starts at the Supreme Court is because the state of Texas has filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state of Georgia. The state of Michigan state of Wisconsin.

So those cases have original jurisdiction that was filed Tuesday.

Yesterday the President intervened, filed a motion to intervene as an image and is granted yet because he's what's called the real party in interest and impacts him. None of these cases call for determination of the outcome of the election. By the way, but that was filed yesterday a motion to intervene on behalf of the President and then about the same time. Maybe an hour before 17 maybe 18 states now have filed friend of the court briefs either supporting Texas totally or in Arizona's case, saying, look what I can get to the merits, but we think it's important that you hear this case and we believe your jurisdiction.

State to state is mandatory, not optional, not do so what they're saying is what we say in our positions is that the original jurisdiction wave states as on both sides of the case is mandatory Harry that the Supreme Court has to hearing absolutely and that another position of the Supreme Court of them in a couple of Justices Alito and Thomas but that site is never access. So if we go back to Arizona versus California decision taken in 2020. This year, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito both agreed that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. In this particular case is mandatory.

It's not optional, so that would mean that the Supreme Court has to take this case has to consider this case and has to decide this case now.

It's not clear that a majority of justices of the United States Supreme Court agreed with that position but I think Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have the superior constitutional argument and it's very very important that the state of Arizona has filed a brief in support of that notion, and we will have to wait and see whether the Supreme Court majority agrees with. But major constitutional issues affecting each and every citizen in each and every state are at risk with respect to whether or not the Supreme Court takes this case. Otherwise, the Supreme Court effectively, not necessarily intentionally would unleash administrators. The executive branch to violate the electors clause of the United States Constitution. So this is a very very important series of cases so amassed I think this points the next question. And that's this recent one. Like in Bush versus Gore the resume to one case it would be outcome determinative. When I think have clearly reached that outcome determinative case right here you're there you are still other cases pending, but this is the outcome. The term of case you are there you are there with Texas versus Pennsylvania. There is no doubt about it.

You have 62 electors. It's taken I want really I want to focus on something that is very important for the audience to understand and those of you who are listening to understand the allegations made by Texas and supported by these 17 other states that I rattled off their names is not has got nothing to do with election fraud or election rigging or anything like that what it is saying is very simply, this each state needs to conduct its election laws in accordance with the laws mandated and passed by the legislatures of those states. Okay.

That's why our federal system is about.

Remember this is a federal union that means everybody does things according to the law and that was what binds us together what Texas is saying is that Wisconsin and Michigan and Georgia and Pennsylvania violated their own state laws. In doing things in a proper in a fashion that was improper and only the legislature under the Constitution can send the mats that the manner in the means of by which electors are chosen, non-legislative actors like the Secretary of State in Michigan who took it upon herself to send out 7.7 million absentee ballots when Michigan law does not permit her to do that violated the law when in Georgia, I'm sad to say, my state, the Secretary of State entered into a settlement agreement with Stacy Abrams and the Democrats.

That said, you don't have to verify a signature with the voter ID registration card when state law says you have to. Who are you Brent Roethlisberger to do that.

What authority did you have to do that state law says the contrary, you have no business violating state law and that's what Texas says. Therefore, the 62 electors in these states and again I want to I want to underscore that were not talking about disenfranchising it was Amy's lawsuit or disenfranchising you know hundred million voters were 250 million voters over 300 million voters not actually it's not just imprinting it disenfranchising anyone because the there still be, the states will still put up electors of the state of Texas is capital that is involved 6262 that makes a difference in the outcome. So it so you know, the legislatures now need to step in. That's an argument that's being made and to say, look, this is the way you like the slate of electors consistent with state law. So it begs this question and that is and this is by Wiley Crescent I said earlier, the briefs are actually due today at 3 o'clock so the bricks are coming in at 3 o'clock today so will have brief small for states make Christmas if they file a consolidated brief or they file separately.

We will see on the amicus brief took the same position here that there voters because of the irregularities that took place in the change of state law without the appropriate process have had their votes. Harry diminished, or if you will percent if you get the allegations. Basically, this the actions of the four states and changing the way in which the ballots were to be collected and mailed in and done with appropriate security safeguards. Those changes impacted the value so to speak, of the voters in the states. What a lot of people do not know is that you have a constitutional right to vote for President that in our history. Early on it was the Senate that went good so I put up electors so there's a whole constitutional process when it irregularity happens in election, even if it's a procedural irregularity, or violation of state law, which is what were talking about here, but this is not foreign to the Constitution.

The Constitution anticipated this. The founders anticipated this precisely so, the key distinction is between executive branch decision-making and legislative branch decision-making at the various states so pursuant to the United States Constitution.

It is up to the state legislature to set the terms of an election in each and every state.

That's number one number two.

Once those terms have been sat by the state legislature.

Those terms cannot be varied except by the state legislature itself.

Any other change in my opinion, is arguably unconstitutional on its face. And so what the state of Texas is arguing is that these defendant states, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They engaged in. If you will, executive/administrative branch misconduct that misconduct standing alone dilutes the votes of citizens in each and every other state so in 46 other states there. Their votes were indeed diluted so the United States Constitution's basically suggests that litigation between Stu's two states create something called original jurisdiction, meaning that the case must originate before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court must ascertain, in my view, whether or not these executive and administrative branch changes were indeed valid. They can come up with a appropriate remedy. The case is entitled state of Texas versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state of Georgia.

Michigan State constant. It's case number 220 original 155 is original jurisdiction on election.

This is the moment.

This is the case, was that there would be one. This is the one that will be outcome, in our view is Minnesota state court cases stop, but this is really the ballgame right in our take your calls and comments.

We come back.

Don't forget support the work of the ACLJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership is powering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. You forgive today online ACLJ is everyone wearing six of your calls get some comments up from YouTube and Facebook as well.

Let's go ahead and get some of those comments up. I'll let me also say this if you are watching on her social media platforms and they have really exploded over the last month. If you're on YouTube that subscribe button right now and also the bell next to it so you're notified. We can live liquid obviously were live at this time a day when you're watching us. But there are other times of the day when we will come as well, and we encourage you to stay is a great way to stay engaged with us. So go ahead and hit the subscribe button on YouTube and also the bell also now on rumbled not lie, but it is posted. Later in the day to look at as they are faced with the course ACLJ.org and periscope YouTube super chat from G says that since there are number of anti-Trump Republicans, even if it goes back to the states for the Republican-led legislature still decide against Pres. Trump and the answer to that is yes. The court is not going to say who the electors are, or from what party the electors are Andy now look, this is not ends.

Texas says we are to the Supreme Court. We are not asking you to decide this election to name the victor were not saying that that's not the Supreme Court's job to decide whether it's Tom provide news the President what it is saying is that if you find that the equal protection of the losses been violated, and these four defendant states did not conduct their elections in accordance with their state statutes send it back to the legislature and let the legislature as the Constitution permits pick a slate of electors. And yes, conceivably, J Republican legislature in any particular state could cast its votes for someone other than Pres. Trump.

They could cast the votes from when they could not cast a slate of electors at all.

If I don't want to and then therefore they just don't they don't vote. And then of course the 12th amendment might come into place and the House of Representatives decides it, but that's what I think it's very important to realize Texas is simply saying this and it's in the incident, the complaint very clearly non-legislative actors. That is if you're not a legislate door and you're not in the legislature give the Secretary of State, lack of authority to amend or nullify election statutes, and you know what the authority for that is that cited Bush versus Gore decided in 2000.

In other words, elections have to be conducted in accordance with what state law says these four states didn't do that.

Therefore there electors should not be qualified to vote for the President. We do have some breaking news, Israel, and Morocco have agreed to normalize relationship. The President just said Thursday.

This of the fourth Arab Israeli agreement in four months, not the item to what you're buying is going to do about this is a bilateral agreement, so at Harry. He can't undo them, but these are significant Arab countries were predominantly Muslim countries that have had really shown alliance towards Israel change that this administration is effectively change the shape of the Middle East, absolutely. And contrary to the forecasts by Pres. Trump's opponents. President crop has advanced the notion of middle East up piece effectively and so what we have now are four substantive agreements advancing peace and normalization in the Middle East and think about it.

Pres. Obama, the Obama Biden administration did very little except inflame the situation in the Middle East and throw Israel our ally under the bus.

At the very last moment. So I think this is very very important news very very welcome news, and Pres. Trump deserves credit, tomorrow's program will do a segment on this. Maybe get David Benjamin around and leave your someone from our Israel office to to participate in that. Maybe skip ashes will probably be very helpful. A letter takes a couple phone calls again if you want tacos 800-684-3110. I would start new or they call Janet Janice is calling from Washington state alike to hygienist during the holiday. At this point going forward any other date, thereby, for example, like Nevada or Arizona believed that one of those states also violated their own election. My well then they would have to file a motion to amend their motion for a bill of complaint not likely not likely now. Arizona efficiently was not named, filed a brief not single address the merits, but saying the court better address the merits because there's election integrity issue here, and it better be addressed quickly. I think what's up. I think the key aspect of that in my mind, Janice, is this case is the one that sets it up because I never would I walk through in the second half of the program how this works. If the state legislatures go back and what the state legislatures presented. We talk about this possibility can come to an answer member or not there may not be able to.

They may not be able to come up with a candidate I was with a slate of electors, in which case will tell you that it goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote. It's not 435 votes votes each state has one vote depending upon the state delegations that they make the decision and I believe the Republicans control 27 of the state delegations and the remainders are controlled by Democrats.

So the state delegations get together and decide which candidate they're going to vote for that would happen if there is no no one reaches 270 votes in the electoral college. You don't need to add anymore states you've admitted to the Texas litigation. This gives 62 electors if they are disqualified because they didn't follow their state laws and electing the electors okay that is sufficient to be outcome determinative. If the Supreme Court decides that state law was violated as Texas says it was all right.

So I want to do is encourage everybody to do this Outlook is what can happen working to get briefs filed this afternoon at 3 o'clock from the various states will review them. Of course then the case is actually joined at that point point when I mean by joined is are the briefs of the President. The brief of Texas.

The brief of the amici have all been filed that there was a group of lawyers filed against the state of Texas. Their amicus brief has been filed. So all those briefs have been filed by 3 o'clock this afternoon which means it's probably the entire case is then distributed to the Supreme Court. There are multiple issues on which the court has, to address. It is a motion to have a bill of complaint. Granted, it is a motion for preliminary injunction is a motion for a stay pending. That injunction is a motion also for an administrative state that is can be done by a justice. All of that is pending. Although that's being responded to. So we will know. I think we will have an idea we had their brief what that really I can try to guess whether to say and then I think the next thing to look for is what is the court due to the grant. The case which Justice Thomas and Justice Alito think is mandatory in which original jurisdiction means you have to take the case or the other justices prevail, and it becomes discretionary. They don't take the case and if they do take the case.

They have oral argument not of oral argument, they decided on the papers all of the options were many and if all that the second about a broadcast get people out of rocket that is a lot of ice. You go over to jacek@aclj.org were screaming at their go over to YouTube were screaming at their you could go over to Facebook and periscope and you can get a fair and will certainly be a platform later they can get it rumbles well. We encourage you to do that, subscribe as well appear on YouTube right now very important but also support the work of the ACLJ like this program you get engaged ACLJ.org. Any amount you donate this month we can imagine you for ACLJ.org the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the world do protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ.live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow just because it would happen so in court on Tuesday morning early Tuesday morning, the state of Texas filed a bill of complaint original jurisdiction with the sprinkler United States against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of course also the state of Georgia state of Michigan State of Wisconsin. For those that case was filed then and they filed a brief they filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, brief in support of motion for an injunction motion for stay in motion for an administrative state.

So that's with me were required to be filed to the court issued an order. Later that day, Tuesday. That said, is what we want we want the four states to respond to all of this by 3 o'clock today. So if you're watching us live in just a couple hours they have to submit their briefs so that's what happened at 3 o'clock today. Then the so we continue this the 17 states came in and filed an amicus brief in support of the position of the state of Texas, then the President of the United States moved to intervene in the case because he's the real party in interest so that is what is happened. Now let me tell you what the case is about the case is not to determine whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden is the winner. That's not what they're asking for. In fact, they say that in their complaints and in their briefs. What's at issue is the constitutionality of the selection of those four states elect doors and Andy. That's why it's important to draw the distinction between its outcome determinative in the sense that those four states were those electors go will determine the election, but they're not saying in the complaint snores the presence think you must pick you know you got aside Donald Trump President they're not doing that. No, they're not doing that and is asking that no and Texas is not asking that the amicus states are not asking that nobody is asking the Supreme Court to decide the election what they are saying is this actions by nonlegislative election officials in the defendant states people like the secretaries of State those actions which were not authorized or ratified by the state legislature were unconstitutional. That's the heart of this case. That's what they're saying. The Secretary of State cannot extend things agree to things that are not permitted by the legislature agreed that only the elect than the signature on a ballot done had to be compared with the signature on the voter registration card is reference Berger did in Georgia who are you to do that, the Secretary of State, not the state legislature of the Gen. assembly for you to make a decision like that ravens Berger got no right to do that and that's exactly what were sent with the states are saying let nonlegislative actors got involved in this and should not of done so all right. The super check from Theo says what can each one of us to help while at this point bite in a couple hours this the issues are joint here. So pray support good organizations that do work like ours and others, but specifically the ACLJ, of course, and morning to see what the next move is. And they may call for additional briefing. It's possible they say they want a reply brief from the state of Texas on Friday that could be something so will see a letter back to the opposing tribes and consummate people are calling in.

Let's go ahead and bring in James from Vermont James go ahead draw near the border of Belgrade. Geiger explained that it Supreme Court should agree with Texas that the four defendants state have violated the Constitution and Supreme Court send it back to state legislatures and they continue to vote for Biden contracts are contracts that because the court has declared that it was a constitutional violation.

The answer to that Harry explained is no because all the court can do is order the state legislature.

30 seconds to the ceric to pick the next slightly so the state legislature would then have the exclusive right to select electors for the presidency that is a right given to them by the United States Constitution are very good take talk about support support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ.org. Any amount you donate we get a matching gift will encourage me that if you're watching on Facebook like our Facebook page policy here on YouTube hit subscribe and put that hit that bell so you know what were alive same thing on from the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you beautiful gift today online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy mission life today online ACLJ/explained again that I think will I think we need to do one more time what this case decides okay so the by this afternoon at 3 o'clock.

The issues joint means. The briefs have been filed. Andy and Harry and I will look at the briefs this afternoon when they come in the art. We are nursery is an hour behind so will be to o'clock our time 3 o'clock East Coast Lakme table want to get it certified on up on the up on their website will get the brief look and see what we've got that point issues or joints of this report is very interesting, dynamic, and that is what did they do with it now.

There's two justices, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas thereof. The view when a state sues another state that that jurisdiction. At that point is granted, it's an automatic exclusive its original and it must take place.

They don't think it is discretionary.

Now we don't think that the other will know about the other three can newer justices.

Although corsets and capital did not sign on to Leo's opinion back in February that Arizona versus California case, but to reiterate Harry what Andy said about what is the we see its outcome determinative.

What is the remedy here, let's talk about what's up people's expectations. All right what the court can also deny they could say you know what we looked at it. No were not even accept the jurisdiction because it we've looked at it. Here's the opinion they could say were granting it would have all arguments Saturday. I've no idea they could any of those things, but the remedy is very important for people understand what the likely remedy is here, absolutely. So first I think your analysis is absolutely correct.

The Supreme Court does indeed have original jurisdiction, whether a majority of the Supreme Court agrees with my analysis or not. That is indeed my pain. Assuming the Supreme Court takes this particular case the most out likely outcome if they rule in favor of Texas is to simply kickback the decision as to who the state will select as electors to the state legislature and the state legislature may indeed recline to select electors, meaning that this case ultimately or at least the vote for President will ultimately be decided by the house of representatives so the point that I'm trying to make here is that the Supreme Court will not determine the winner of this election. It will simply decide or could decide that the four defendants states have engaged in you will in misconduct, meaning that the administrative/executive branch you serve the power and authority of the legislative branch, and it's up to the legislative branch to reclaim its authority, and then select electors or declined to do so. Let's go to Robert he is on line 3 is known for a while. Robert what the broadcaster on their page. I thank you all.

While at the Texas case not immediately after the election. Can you talk about the strategy a lot of dying in it at the safe harbor date shall obtain.

I think they were there was let legislative or litigation pending a liberty states so that the campaign had engaged in.

So I'm sure I don't buy lamp, speculating on this sub.

I am sure they want to see how that litigation was going to go because taking original jurisdiction is a big step. Once it look like good litigations going in a certain direction or not moving fast enough or just being dismissed or case not against you been that guy thing the state of Texas looked at and what their other remedies work that's right anything is not to put them together.

You don't just throw these things together you think about them. You look at what was done. J said you look at what was pending in other jurisdictions and you see maybe that you don't have to do this may be the courts in these other states will rule in favor of what needs to be done in the case or what ought to be done with they did. Ken Paxton did it when he thought it was appropriate to do and I'm sorry that he didn't like.

But that was his decision. Maybe he had good reasons for doing it out of them for doing them very badly. But this is what he had to produce. This is it that these are those of the course, the bound version of this 6 inches of legal paper but there's a lot of work that Haslett doesn't happen in the night. That's weeks of work and you're watching how the other litigation is playing out of the same time.

Let's go to Stephanie. We are taking your calls 800-684-3110 Stephanie go ahead and remind what I'm about to remind you of one thing. My question, you reported a good while ago that thousands of people who had already voted indicated they wanted to change their vote after they follow debate that I'm not clear that the print court picnic eight and decide in favor of That mean in a contested state have to vote again. Will it be notified as I know this is complicated. Know all that means is that the states will return to the state legislature, not the courts can come up the reports remembered original jurisdiction invested at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court that they ruled in the favor of Texas.

We just send it back to the state legislatures and tell those legislatures select the electors and if they don't select the electors. Andy what happens.

It could go to the House of Representatives under the 12th amendment, if no part.

If no candidate gets 270 electoral votes. Okay. If no candidate gets upon remand to the legislatures if the Supreme Court does that okay and not neither Bodnar trumpets 270 votes. It goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote, not 435 votes, one vote, and it's decided by vote among the delegation of the state. The majority do delegations in the House of Representatives are Republicans.

Presumably they would vote for the Republican candidate. That's not mandatory. Either they could vote for anybody they want to they don't even have to vote for the dues around the table running could vote for Jay for five are present in the art that okay then place let me take a couple of the questions and comments and coming in super jet.

Kimberly said, can you please explain an amicus brief as in relation to what other states are joining on so that the other states could intervene in the case or think about a friend of the court brief in amicus brief is a friend of the corporate it's read by the justices it's bound. Also when it's filed in a green cover and people have one year. I don't think I do, but it's a great cover, brief, and it is God's.

The idea is that we actually had frequently are amicus briefs cited by the justices. I think we been in his absence.

We been cited by Justices Alito.

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Stevens. Justice Brennan I think once and leaving somebody out. I hate leaving somebody it looks like maybe was my business comes. This is what looks like sort amicus brief is this degree brief printed that's what it looks like for television audience. So as a same same effect same impact. One other cause super check question is of the super bills, the Scotus declared war. The entire lecture require that all state legislators choose their electors only apply to those four states, where getting these questions only the four states only table we want to do on this program is explain to you what it is. Okay this is two things we need to be clear on about this litigation, this litigation is about state law not being complied with and number two it's not asking for the court to pick the winner. It's simply asking for the court to say be electors because of the way the state law was not complied with was a violation of equal protection and due process in the elections clause in the electors clause of the U.S. Constitution and that the remedy should be that the court orders the legislatures to appoint the new electors. That's the way this works.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Let's take Donald from South Carolina Donald are on their break with it weekly. All the work you all regulating up Marcus and I really appreciate what Texas yes Micah.

My question to you about the dilemma saying is that all of the news media is acting like even this Texas is nothing that nothing so if the justices ruled in the case David Stacy Abrams of the world-renowned African-American art will take this and turn it to the people and will have riots and other things because the news media is not betraying this as a constitutionally taken this as a prop issue and instead of the constitutional issue. So I'm asking you request will what what can we do in order to communicate. Even though the National League is not doing it no say and look I that's why we're on thousand radio stations were broadcasting on every social media platform we can, including Facebook, YouTube, periscope rumble, and I'm sure I'm leaving things out Instagram as well. We put information up, look, they're not covering it better starting to cover a little bit more on that when the states joint but to be really hard to ignore it.

If the court grants jurisdiction and decides to decide the case and will certainly be impossible to ignore.

If the court were, say, the Forex states have to select new electors look.

It goes against the media narrative, but what were doing on this broadcast. We do at the ACLJ which is to be the facts as they are. This is a question of law. That's was before the Supreme Court of the United States a question of law. The remedy is set forth in the U.S. Constitution, the state legislature selects the electors if they can't do it. Nobody gets up to 70 goes to the Congress of the 12th amendment to the founders and then the subsequent members of the Constitution figured all of this out what we're doing is just making sure that this is being complied with your support of the ACLJ mix that happened like this broadcast enjoy getting this information to support the work of the ACL gender matching challenged up right now ACLJ.Morgan really important that you do that unless they live in talk to our audiences again on Facebook and periscope more information. When a society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the worship ministry and what Obama care means to discover many ways.

Your membership is empowering the right question for mission life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge for every dollar you donate $10 gift becomes 20 $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenged to make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you today online ACLJ share with your friends also encourages subscriber those media platforms that you get notices and up they were to take the calls in order that they come in and let's go to Beth, who is calling from North Carolina on line 6 Beth go-ahead Europe election product that rather a question of law about the unconstitutional act contravening state law that pathetically in the future state legislature choose to write law that mail-in ballot without guard are going to become a part of the statute states despite the knowledge that the potential fraud, what would be the Print Ct., #1 be required to take it or would have to work its way through the court system request for and that what would be the remedy.

That's great, great question. It would start in the District Court would not be original jurisdiction.

What could be original jurisdiction. If the state sues the other statement you have voters suing the state that will be different by the state to state it would be original jurisdiction. It would be the very same questions being raised. Now it would be equal protection. It would be due process would be the elections clause in the electors clause, but the Constitution does give the states some wide latitude. Now the Constitution gives the states the absolute right to make them time means, manner and method of choosing electors in the end and under their estate laws they can pick the other way they want to do it by the nonlegislative actors like the Secretary of State have to follow whatever that states laws are and what Texas is saying is that that didn't happen in this case are we did Texas is saying we followed our state laws. Y'all didn't do it in these defendant states and therefore you've diluted our vote and you've made and we and our vote is nullified. Therefore, go back to the legislature and select the slate of electors legislature as the Constitution and the law provides. Let's go to Grace who was calling from California line to a state that is not employed Grace go-ahead hello, thank you for taking my call gentleman by Jenny Aceves is also one of our largest listening audience states probably is our largest listening audience they so not nothing against California go-ahead and were very large court take care K. What is your detailed argument for how the vote of people in other states were diminished by the conduct of the defendant. Faith help you and you and drink the fact that all parties had the same opportunity to vote in the same way in the state where all the voters spent the absentee ballot in every state had different needs and regulation. That's a problem you don't have a national standard voting, so the ability to diminish or dilute the vote of a sister state is very real presence of the state of Texas has a requirement that you have to have ideas that have a security envelope signed on the inside you know and in the state of Georgia says now will just take anybody was comes in while there's a lot about start out in Texas that would've counted Harry Georgia so that's where all this comes in absolutely certain.

The basic premise is that every legal vote should count. With respect to electing electors number one. Here, the claim is that illegal votes votes that should not have counted were indeed counted. What is that mean it means that those votes those illegal votes diminish the power and influence of legal votes in each and every one of the sister states so in 46 states in the United States, assuming the state of Texas is argument is persuasive. Their votes were indeed diluted for instance by the actions of the Secretary of State of Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, who mailed out 7.7 million absentee ballots to individuals who did not requested.

Now she could've mailed those votes out if she had received permission from the state legislature. She failed to do so. Those votes, if they were indeed counted.

They are indeed illegal yet so that that's exactly how the process works and that's where the diminution of the boat takes place bills calling from Georgia hi Bill are here. I've got a question about the way I understand the article 2, section 1 argument all that I've been talking to my State Sen. about Facebook updates and he's basically saying we are powerless unless the governor called governor can't call a special session on last year's court ruling as he has to because they got the governor and the legislature are not investigative body is built. If the Supreme Court states came out and said okay we find in favor this is if they can find in favor of Texas either George's and have to get back into session. You don't get electors exactly right. J. Either we get back in the session and the general assembly or that's Georgia will not be represented in the selection of electors, which I don't think governor camp would want to happen. So, I think, is that if the Supreme Court rules that the Georgia actors nonlegislative actors violated the method of electing the President shall electors as Georgia law requires. If they find that and they sent it back to the legislature. I guarantee the general assembly is going to meet George's noggin be one letter want to be left outside the door and electing the slate of electors.

Let's go to Johnny's calling a line 5 hi John, you know, a good sort of a two-part question about have a whole lot of information or knowledge Supreme Court word, the number of states that have joined this case impact that the food in all what the ultimate outcome would be in also attaching that any sort of political pressure or media pressure impactor to stay in Oregon strictly guest just as Jesus and this is mostly blind media is not supposed to matter – most of the siding on the facts and the law. You're truly law based legally based. You know I would think to be five votes.

I'm guessing but but there are consequences to these five votes so that look at the state statutes and save it with the legislate with the administrative agencies of the secretary states it was in contravention to the statute.

Go back to the legislature that that's me thinking what what should be. That doesn't mean that's what will be as it relates to the other states coming and it helps it helps in this context of what he gets another break before the court shows that there's a lot of you got basically 1820 states say that we like the way this went down. So I think it adds to the serious nature of this. I don't think there's really any question about I would try to get a J exhibit a to be really quick quick quick that you election reading the article is about a second.

That button on the lines of state have to actually have everything settled is if it's contested then when all the legislators need is it my interpretation of my trip to Ghana. It is saying that that when the legislators meet they cannot electorate playmates the safe harbor, which is kind of fast and now you got like eight election challenge electors challenges when it were really is.

So those are statutory issues. The Constitution trumps all of that, the dates are set by statute, but but the Supreme Court says on this is what will matter that does it for the broadcast today. Thank you for joining us again appear on any of our social media platforms including YouTube rumble twitter periscope any of Facebook, Instagram, subscriber like on YouTube subscribe like that Bell makes a big difference in support the work of the ACLJ as we fight for religious freedom as we fight for election integrity.

As we bring you this broadcast each and every day ACLJ.org the American Center for unjust solutions at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online ACLJ