The Buck Stops With The Executive- A Harsha Sankar Article (December 2020)

The state legislatures have the responsibility to pass laws that establish how the Presidential electors are chosen. Electors have to be chosen in a prescribed manner. If they are not and if the federal executive branch, with the President at its head, believes that the state legislators were complicit in violating their state's own laws on how the electors should have been chosen, then the President can declare martial law to schedule fresh elections for the Presidential electors.

The "Buck Always Stop" with the President. The executive branch executes and they directly have to answer for their execution. It is a time-honored legal precedent that if laws are violated just so a legal authority can ascertain lawful power, that lawful power becomes null and void. The executive branch can only be held accountable for violating basic laws and not for refusing to treat court opinions as decrees.

If Trump genuinely believes that state legislators were complicit in any type of fraud just so they can have the authority to pick the selectors, he can disqualify those state's electors from "participating in the Electoral College" and then from voting for the President. Of course, if no candidate receives 270 votes from the electors, then the House will pick the President on a per state basis.

Ultimately the "Buck Stops With Him". It has to stop somewhere. It is much better for the head of the executive to take final decision rather than a judge or legislative body. Congress does not have the authority to reject electors since they will be either accepting the candidates or perhaps voting for the candidates.

All this upholds checks and balances in the best way possible. Who would The People, in a Representative Democratic Republic, rather take ultimate decision? Should it be Judges who are supposed to be apolitical or rather legislators who may have to vote for both the President and Vice-President? The head of the executive branch can be held accountable for breaking the law. He or she cannot be held to account if he or she upholds the law as he or she sees fit.

Judges are only supposed to apply and support the law when there are two different parties in the court. They are supposed to be a passive branch of government "who calls balls or strikes" in matters of law by dispensing it in the presence of two distinct parties. The judges have no right as the courts have no jurisdiction in deciding a matter that neither involves two parties and also in deciding a matter in which guilt is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The rejection of electors is a judgment call that only a President(head of the executive) can or should make. If he/she believes that the state legislatures were complicit in producing fraudulent or even just inaccurate elections, then that head of the executive branch has to reject the electors. That President will have to invoke the 14th Amendment or the Insurrection Act Of 1807 to do just that. Again, it is the President's call as there exists a rebellion, a Coup D'Etat.

Why are the Courts are rejecting most of his "Legal Team's"petitions as they should? Because they are not legal cases as of yet. Really, the local, state, and federal prosecutors and police should be investigating and prosecuting this.
 

Trump is correct to approach legislators and executive branch officials to remind them of their lawful roles and is consistent with the US Constitution. Certification of an election is a political, not legal, move.