Dear Senator Gallego,

I am your constituent. I live at <redacted>, Phoenix, AZ 85028. You can find my cell phone and email address below.

I do not write often, but I feel compelled to send you this urgent email today due to the immediacy of the current situation.  I pray you will seriously consider this request and that you will respond, even if you do not agree.

I am writing you because Trump electoral votes remain invalid and disqualified because according to our Constitution:  "No person shall hold any office under the United States who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection."

In the morning, on 1/3/2025, you will swear an oath to support the Constitution, to bear true faith and allegiance to it, and "to well and faithfully discharge the duties of your office."

If you don't believe the Constitution prohibits Congress from accepting electoral votes for oath breaking insurrectionists, I ask you to please explain your reasoning.

If you *do* believe the Constitution prohibits Congress from accepting electoral votes for oath breaking insurrectionists, I ask you to please faithfully execute your official duty to reject Trump electoral votes as invalid.

In four days (next Monday) on 1/6/2025 at 1pm you will meet with your fellow Senators and House Representatives in joint session to consider the fifty Certificates of Vote, and their corresponding Certificates of Ascertainment, submitted by the various States.

The sole purpose of that joint session is for Congress to pass judgment on those electoral votes, reject any that are found to be invalid (if any), to count the remaining valid Certificates of Vote, and to certify the majority winner of those remaining valid electoral votes as the 47th President of The United States of America.

Enforcing and executing the mandatory prohibition from holding office under USC 14.3 is your duty.  An electoral vote for a person prohibited from holding office is clearly invalid (not regularly given).

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Trump v Anderson ruled that States do not have the authority to disqualify presidential candidates and that only Congress has the authority to determine whether a candidate is an oath breaking insurrectionist as prohibited by USC 14.3 and only Congress has the authority to enforce that prohibition.

They also said Congress must pass enabling legislation describing how to enforce the prohibition demanded by USC 14.3.  The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 *is* legislation, and it explicitly provides the process for rejecting invalid electoral votes.

Because of the Trump v Anderson opinion, States were not permitted to remove the name of a candidate that both the Supreme Court and Congress found to be an oath breaking insurrectionist as prohibited by USC 14.3.  As a result, 77.3 million US citizens voted for a candidate that clearly engaged in insurrection after having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States because States were forced to include the name of a candidate the Constitution prohibits from taking office.

Congress is the only entity allowed to enforce this constitutional prohibition against oath breaking insurrectionists from holding the office of President.  There is no one else.

If you do not uphold your duty, I have no recourse.

I ask you to consider:  If a presidential candidate decides to run for a third term in office in the future, no State is allowed to remove that candidate's name from either the primary ballot or the general election ballot because no State has the authority to rule on the qualification of a federal candidate under Trump v Anderson.  If, under whatever circumstance, that clearly prohibited candidate were to win enough popular votes to win the Electoral College, and States where that candidate won then submitted that winning candidate's electors (Certificate of Ascertainment) and their electoral votes (Certificate of Vote) to Congress for counting, should those electoral votes be counted?

I do not imagine you would be conflicted, or hesitant in demanding Congress refuse to count those electoral votes because the candidate is clearly prohibited under USC 22.1; even if the candidate won an overwhelming majority of the popular vote.

Why then would you hesitate to demand the same Constitutional faith, allegiance, and duty from Congress under the current circumstance?

Yes, the conflict and social unrest that rejecting 77.3 million votes will cause will be enormous.  But upholding the Constitution only when it is convenient is not the oath Congress swears.  Should President Lincoln have taken the position it was too disruptive to enforce the Constitution when the southern states declared they had seceded?  And should he have decided not to enforce that prohibition?  Of course not.  That decision was *far more* disruptive and "dangerous" than refusing to count electoral votes for oath breaking insurrectionists, as the Constitution demands.

If President Lincoln had the clarity and the moral strength to do what the Constitution demands in spite of its tremendous difficulty, I ask you to demand the same of yourself and of Congress.

Both the Supreme Court (in Trump v Anderson[1]) and Congress (in the Select January 6th Committee Final Report) have found Trump to be an oath breaking insurrectionist.

Given this, and strictly speaking, every single congressperson is obligated to reject Trump electoral votes as invalid (not regularly given).  It is their sworn duty.

With that said, if a congress person sincerely felt that the Jan 6, 2021 riot was not an insurrection, or they sincerely felt that Trump did not engage at all in that insurrection and that he did not provide any "aid or comfort" to the participants, then I could understand them accepting Trump's electoral votes as not disqualified.

Otherwise, the Constitution provides no refuge.

Regardless of the difficulty, you are obligated to dispute the electoral vote for oath breaking insurrectionists and to vote to reject it.

I know in my heart that more than 78 House Representatives and 20 Senators believe Trump engaged in insurrection.  That's how many congress people it takes to dispute a potentially invalid Certificate of Vote on 1/6/2025 and break into separate sessions to vote to reject a Certificate of Vote as invalid.  I believe you know in your heart he engaged in insurrection.

I ask you to dispute the Alabama Certificate of Vote, to break into separate chambers to consider whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore prohibited from office, and to vote to reject that Certificate as not regularly given.  I ask you to do this for every State's Certificate of Vote that casts votes for Trump as President of the United States.

If you cannot do this. I sincerely and humbly ask you to explain to this constituent your reasoning.

I ask you to take your Congressional oath as seriously as I know you do.  Ask yourself: What you would do if there were no political damage and if there would be no civil unrest?  If you believe Trump engaged in insurrection, except for the fear of consequences, you would surely reject his electoral votes as surely as you would reject electoral votes for a candidate running for a third term.

If every Democrat votes for what they know to be true, only seven (7) Republicans out of 273 will need to believe in their oath (or their God) more than they believe in following their party in order to formally reject Trump Certificates of Vote as invalid/disqualified -- three (3) House Republicans and four (4) Senate Republicans.  I believe those seven Republicans exist, but they will need to be reminded of their Constitutional responsibility, and they will need to be reminded we are watching, history is watching, and their God is watching.

If you believe as I do that Trump incited and abetted the insurrection of January 2021, I pray that you will say so as loudly as you possibly can, and that you will use every possible political connection you have to convince the Congress assembled on 1/6/2025 to obey their oath to faithfully discharge their duty of office and reject the invalid Trump electoral votes.

Sincerely,
Mark Moore
Phoenix, AZ
mark.moore@**********.com
***-***-****


[1]: I have read the SCOTUS opinion and the Jan 6 Report. I know you have as well. Both clearly identify the 1/6/2021 event as insurrection. Both clearly find Trump engaged in that insurrection. Although SCOTUS did not restate that Trump is an oath breaking insurrectionist prohibited under USC 14.3 from holding the office of President, they *did not* dispute or overturn that explicit finding of the lower court; SCOTUS simply demanded that Congress determine whether or not Trump is disqualified (he is) and demanded Congress alone enforce such disqualification -- This is the very purpose of the joint session of Congress on 1/6/2025. Because SCOTUS did not overrule the factual findings of the lower court, those findings *are* the findings of the SCOTUS until/unless it rules otherwise. Even more plainly, you can see with your own eyes that all nine Justices on the 23-719 Opinion document believe personally and individually that Trump is an oath breaking insurrectionist as prohibited under USC 14.3 because not one of them made an appeal to that explanation. They appealed to States not having authority, and to Congress' need to pass implementing legislation. Think about it... If they believed he was not an insurrectionist or that USC 14.3 didn't prohibit him from holding office, they would have said so. They would have said the Colorado SC had ruled incorrectly because Trump was not disqualified. That is a far more direct explanation. The fact that none of the nine Justices made that argument, neither in the majority opinion nor in any concurring opinion, betrays their personal finding that he is in fact an oath breaking insurrectionist. None made the argument that Trump did not engage in insurrection, that the insurrection on 1/6 /2021 wasn't an act of insurrection, or that the prohibition/disqualification under USC 14.3 was not in force because none believed it to be true. They know he is an oath breaking insurrectionist and they know USC 14.3 prohibits him holding the office of President, but they believe only Congress can make that determination and enforce that prohibition. So, they limited their explanation and because of their cowardice of the potential reaction set up this horrendously awful situation where Congress is obligated to discard 77.3 million votes. As terrible as it will surely be for Congress to seat Kamila Harris and Tim Walz, as required by our Constitution, it will setup an even more terrible future if Congress is as timid as SCOTUS surely was.