Categories
Anti-Commandeering Doctrine Federalist #46 Intelwars james madison nullification Strategy Supreme Court

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: An Introduction

The anti-commandeering doctrine provides a powerful tool to undermine overreaching, unconstitutional federal power. So, what is this doctrine? What is it based upon? And how can it be used as an effective tool for liberty?

How Do We Confront Federal Overreach?

Most people assume the feds have the final say. When Uncle Sam says jump, states and local government simply ask, “How high?” But given that the federal government was intended to limit its actions to constitutionally delegated powers and all other authority was left “to the states and the people” per the Tenth Amendment, how do we hold the federal government in check? How do we stop it from exercising powers not delegated?

This isn’t a new question. In fact, those skeptical of the Constitution raised it during the ratification debates. James Madison answered it in Federalist #46.

In his blueprint for resisting federal power, Madison offered a number of actions, but most significantly, he suggested that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” would impede federal overreach.

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” [Emphasis added]

What Is the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine?

Anti-commandeering is a longstanding Supreme Court doctrine. In a nutshell, the anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” state personnel or resources for federal purposes.

In effect, the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from requiring states to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs. State and local governments cannot directly block federal agents from enforcing federal laws or implementing federal programs, but they do not have to cooperate with the feds in any way. For instance, a local sheriff cannot block ATF agents from enforcing a federal gun law, but the ATF cannot force the sheriff’s office to participate in the enforcement effort.

Which Supreme Court Cases support the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine?

The anti-commandeering doctrine rests on five landmark cases, the first dating back to 1842.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government could not force states to implement or carry out the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it:

The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution

New York v. United States (1992) the Court held that the regulations in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985 were coercive and violated the sovereignty of New York, holding that “because the Act’s take title provision offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.

Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in the 6-3 decision:

As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”

She later expounded on this point.

While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.

Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”

Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.

Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Court held that the federal government cannot compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place. Justice Robert Kennedy argued that allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.

The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at     (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.

Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the Court held that Congress can’t take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” even when the state action conflicts with federal law. Samuel Alito wrote, “a more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.” He continued:

The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.

Taken together, these five cases firmly establish a legal doctrine holding that the federal government has no authority to force states to participate in implementing or enforcing its acts.

Madison’s advice in Federalist #46, supported by the anti-commandeering doctrine, provides a powerful tool that states can use against federal acts and regulatory programs.

Can’t the Federal Government Punish Wayward States By Cutting Funding?

In simple terms, the federal government cannot use funding to coerce states to take a desired action. Independent Business v. Sebelius directly addressed this issue.

The federal government can withhold funding related to any action that a state refuses to take. For instance, if the state refuses to enforce federal marijuana laws, the federal government can cut funding relating to drug enforcement. But it cannot cut unrelated funding to punish the state. In other words, Congress couldn’t cut education funding to punish a state for not cooperating with marijuana prohibition.

How Do We Determine What Is or Isn’t Constitutional? Isn’t that the Supreme Court’s Job?

The short answer is it doesn’t matter. Constitutionality isn’t part of the equation. The anti-commandeering doctrine doesn’t depend on a finding of constitutionality. States can refuse to provide personnel or resources for any federal activity regardless of its constitutionality. The utilization of state recourses, funds and personnel are totally at the discretion of the state government.

Will This Strategy Work?

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal law enforcement efforts and program implementation, states, and even local governments, can effectively bring the federal actions to an end.

Consider the 36 states that have legalized marijuana despite federal prohibition.

The legalization of marijuana in a state removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

The same is true for virtually every federal action, from gun control, to Obamacare, to FDA mandates. The federal government depends on the states. And the states don’t have to cooperate.

The post The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: An Introduction first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
Cheerleaders free speech Intelwars Lawsuit Mahanoy area school district New York Times Supreme Court

Teen whose profane Snapchat message got her suspended sues school over free speech and wins. Now the district wants to take it to the Supreme Court.

A Pennsylvania school district is requesting the Supreme Court weigh in on a case after a freshman cheerleader and her parents sued the district after it disciplined the teen for a profane message she shared on social media.

What are the details?

According to a Monday report from the New York Times, titled “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown,” the Mahanoy Area School District has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether students can be disciplined for remarks they make on social media.

In 2017, the unnamed student had just discovered that she didn’t make the varsity cheerleading squad when she sent the offending message.

She took to Snapchat, where she messaged about 250 friends with a message featuring herself and a fellow student with their middle fingers up. The unnamed student captioned the photo “[u]sing a curse word four times,” and expressed her unhappiness with “school,” “softball,” “cheer,” and “everything.”

“Though Snapchat messages are ephemeral by design, another student took a screenshot of this one and showed it to her mother, a coach,” the Times reported. “The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to ‘avoid chaos’ and maintain a ‘teamlike environment.'”

Following the suspension, the teen and her family sued the district and was victorious in the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. At the time, the court ruled that the First Amendment “did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.”

The student and her family, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that the First Amendment protected the teen’s “colorful expression of frustration, made in an ephemeral Snapchat on her personal social media, on a weekend, off campus, containing no threat or harassment or mention of her school, and that did not cause or threaten any disruption of her school.”

What is the school saying?

According to the Times, “the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court” in order to ascertain their ability to discipline students for “what they say away from school.”

“The question presented recurs constantly and has become even more urgent as Covid-19 has forced schools to operate online,” a brief for the district’s appeal read, according to the outlet. “Only this court can resolve this threshold First Amendment question bedeviling the nation’s nearly 100,000 public schools.”

“Whether a disruptive or harmful tweet is sent from the school cafeteria or after the student has crossed the street on her walk home, it has the same impact,” the brief added. “The Third Circuit’s formalistic rule renders school powerless whenever a hateful message is launched from off campus.”

“The Supreme Court next month will consider whether to hear the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., involving a student’s freedom of speech while off school grounds,” the Times said.

Anything else?

Justin Driver, author and law professor at Yale University, told the Times that he partially agrees with the district.

“It is difficult to exaggerate the stakes of this constitutional question,” he said, pointing out that schools have no business “telling students what they could say when they were not in school.”

He continued, “In the modern era, a tremendous percentage of minors’ speech occurs off campus but online. Judicial decisions that permit schools to regulate off-campus speech that criticizes public schools are antithetical to the First Amendment. Such decisions empower schools to reach into any student’s home and declare critical statements verboten, something that should deeply alarm all Americans.”

Share
Categories
14th Amendment Court Cases Intelwars Lochner v. New York Supreme Court

The Legacy of Lochner

The Lochner case may be one of the most remarkable cases in the whole of Constitutional law — remarkable for its influence in the development of “substantive due process.”

It’s also remarkable for its role in the Court’s de-coupling of personal liberty and economic liberty, for its role in the development of judicial scrutiny, and as a focal point of populist progressive spite that culminated in the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 and the infamous “switch in time.”

The dissenting opinion offered by Justice Holmes – dissent of only 670 words – barely two paragraphs, fits into the remarkable category as well. A dissent is wholly devoid of legal substance, yet is widely considered by both liberal and conservative legal scholars to be the most important dissent in the entire corpus of Constitutional law. It’s also remarkable for its inclusion in the anti-canonical body of Constitutional law. That means Lochner is held in equal contempt with Dred Scott v Sanford (1857), Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and Korematsu v United States (1944).

That is why in 2005, when then-Senator Barack Obama spoke out against conservative California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the junior senator from Illinois selected one of the most damning epithets in the liberal legal arsenal: Lochnerian.

“One of the things that is most troubling is Justice Brown’s approval of the Lochner era of the Supreme Court,” Obama intoned from the Senate floor. “Keep in mind that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott. That was the notorious 1857 decision that declared African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

This leads me to what I find to be the most remarkable thing about this Lochner v. New York – how entirely unremarkable it actually is.

Sure, the Court’s opinion in Lochner may be controversial, but it was not remotely like Dred Scott. In fact, a prima facie reading of the Lochner case brief expecting something as salacious as Dred Scott could easily leave you assuming you have the wrong brief.

It was a straightforward decision based on longstanding American principles, including the free labor philosophy of the anti-slavery movement that limits the government’s power to regulate the economy.

Initially, when the decision was handed down in 1905, it was generally very well received. A few years later it became a common rallying cry among those in the progressive movement who would eventually adopt Holmes’ fiery dissent as the canonical view of cases involving economic regulation following FDR’s New Deal. The Roosevelt program fundamentally reshaped the entire country, rejecting the founding values of American Republicanism, rooted in Limited Government, natural rights and individual liberty and morphing it into a fundamentally democratic (with a small d) view that the will of the majority should stand as the foremost value.

In recent years, Lochner has been rediscovered and rehabilitated by the shift in originalist legal interpretation from original Intent to original meaning. And thanks to a small, but growing number of more libertarian-minded legal scholars like Randy Barnett and David Bernstein who have begun to push back against the largely erroneous scholarly consensus that has been attached to this case.

But most liberal legal scholars today will tell you Obama got it right; Lochner represents the disgraceful triumph of evil bosses over cruelly exploited workers, reflecting a “willingness to consistently side with the powerful over the powerless.”

However, an honest appraisal of Lochner demonstrates a principled recognition of the philosophy of free labor, freedom of contract, and natural rights rooted in the Constitution’s Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Ninth Amendment, and long-standing case law, such as the 1825 case of Corfield v Coryell, along with the original public meaning interpretation of the 14th amendment’s due process clause which was cited as the provision upon which Lochner was ultimately decided.

The Case 

In the late 19th century, most bakeries in New York City operated in tenement house basements. The rent in these homes was low, and the cellar floors were sturdy enough to support the weight of an oven. These cramped spaces, however, posed serious sanitation issues. They were never designed for commercial uses.

In 1895, New York enacted the Bakeshop Act to address these problems. The law established a detailed code of sanitation standards for bakeries. One provision was added at the behest of the bakeshop union: employees could not work more than 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. (The owners of the bakeshops were not subject to this limit.)

At the time, small bakeshops were largely owned and operated by Jewish, German, and other immigrants, who served their own communities. The owners of these businesses fiercely resisted unionization and the maximum hour laws. Their operations required a few employees to operate the ovens over a 24-hour period. The workers could then sleep on the premises while the bread was rising or baking.

In contrast, large commercial bakeries could employ shift workers to comply with the maximum-hours law. As a result, the Bakeshop Act had the effect of, and was possibly intended to privilege corporate-owned, unionized bakeries over their small immigrant competitors.

Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant, operated a bakery in Utica, New York. It was located in a nice shop, not in a crowded tenement house in Manhattan. Lochner employed his worker, Arman Schmitter, for more than sixty hours in a week. The lifelong friends likely reached that arrangement so Lochner would be charged with violating the law, thus setting up a test case. Ultimately, Lochner was convicted of violating the Bakeshop Act. He then refused to pay the fifty-dollar fine and was imprisoned.

On appeal, he contended that the Bakeshop Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

All nine Justices agreed that the Bakeshop Act’s health and safety regulations were valid exercises of the state’s police power both the majority and the dissent upheld the regulations concerning ventilation, ceiling heights, the location of ovens, and the cleanliness of floors in bakeries.

The Justices, however, split 5-4 on whether the state could enact the maximum hour’s law pursuant to its police power. Justice Peckham wrote the majority opinion, striking down the maximum-hour law “as an arbitrary interference with the ‘liberty of contract.’”

He rejected the claim that the maximum-hours provision was a genuine health and safety measure. Justice Peckham concluded that, “There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of persons – or the right of free contract –  by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker.”

This approach creates a doctrine termed “The rebuttable Presumption of Liberty.”

Indeed, Justice Peckham twice suggested that the New York law was enacted for “other motives.” In other words, the Bakeshop Act was class legislation aimed at helping unions, and harming non-unionized bakeshops – and a textbook example of rent-seeking behavior.

Justice Harlan wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices White and Justice Day. Justice Harlan agreed with the majority that “there is a liberty of contract which cannot be violated.” But he contended that “when the validity of a statute is questioned, the burden of proof, so to speak, is upon those who assert it to be unconstitutional.”  This approach could be termed “The Presumption of Constitutionality.”

I have covered this doctrinal shift and its relevant case law in an article and a video on “The Constitutional Revolution of 1937.”

The Great Dissent 

Lochner’s critics proved ugly, if in a different way. Foremost among them was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who became a hero to the reform-minded after filing a sharp and much-quoted second dissent in the case.

Holmes was a Massachusetts aristocrat who viewed his service in the Union Army as the most important event of his life. He was so devoted to judicial restraint that he rarely found a law he was willing to strike down. He viewed democracy in violent military terms – as an opportunity for the strong to impose their will on the weak, and he thought it the job of judges to help them do so.

“If my fellow citizens want to go to hell, I will help them,” he wrote. “It’s my job.”

Holmes had contempt for progressive economic legislation, which he viewed as sentimental and ineffective. Though his dissent in the case is held in high regard among progressives, for him it was nothing more than an inclination towards judicial restraint. Justice Holmes wrote in his now-famous dissent.

“[He] would have upheld Bakeshop Act if any reasonable person could have supported the law.”

There are several choice quotes that people tend to focus their attention on in Holmes’ brief and pithy dissent.

“This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain,” –namely “laissez-faire” capitalism.

“It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious or if you like as tyrannical as this, and which equally with this interfere with the liberty to contract. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.”

Some scholars have viewed this passage as a rejection, of Social Darwinism. What Holmes is rejecting Herbert Spencer’s “law of equal freedom” which claimed, “Each has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.”

According to Holmes, the proper scope of government power had nothing to do with the protection of individual rights. Holmes and his fellow Lochner opponents, including the progressive politicians like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and later FDR who would all lionize Holmes for his stand-in Lochner, had little use for individual rights and thought the police power virtually unlimited.  Holmes’ true target was not Herbert Spencer at all. It was James Madison, Montesquieu & Locke

In fact, Oliver Wendell Holmes was an outspoken and enthusiastic proponent of Social Darwinism, something that should be apparent in his general contention that the proper exercise of democracy was a system in which the strong imposed their views on the weak. Even without that personal understanding the same thing could have been parsed out, had those scholars bothered to continue reading the next paragraph of Holmes’ dissent, which doesn’t seem like an unreasonable expectation in a dissent that is only two paragraphs long.

He ended his dissent by reiterating his dark view of law as a Darwinian struggle for power in which majorities should triumph over minorities.?This was the reasoning behind his assertion that the 14th Amendment did not protect the individual liberty of contract, as the Court held in the majority opinion. It too existed in his larger vision of law as a kind of Darwinian struggle, making the 14th Amendment an extension of this and ultimately as part and parcel of Holmes’ Darwinian Constitution and of the law itself.

Lochner’s Legacy 

Lochner v. New York was not particularly controversial when it was decided in 1905. Except for critical coverage in union newspapers, the case was generally well-received in the press. It only became notorious in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt attacked Lochner during his campaign for president.

The former president, who served as a Republican, was now the presidential candidate of the Progressive Party. Roosevelt, who appointed Holmes to the Supreme Court, now praised the dissenters’ approach in campaign speeches. This praise of Holmes’ Lochner dissent was quickly picked up on by the progressive candidate for the Democratic Party, Woodrow Wilson. Holmes’ dissent closely mirrored Wilson’s vision of the proper role and scope of government that closely mirrored many of Wilson’s arguments for a superior system of democratic government that he put forward in his 1908 treatise “Constitutional Government,” which was meant to persuade people to Wilson and Holmes’ vision of a Darwinian Constitution. Additionally, Wilson argued a complete restructuring of government to evolve into something like a parliamentary democracy.

Ultimately, Roosevelt’s third-party campaign took away votes from the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft. As a result, Woodrow Wilson, the progressive candidate on the Democratic ticket, prevailed.

In 1916, President Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. The progressive jurist shared Holmes’s constitutional approach. Before and during the New Deal, Justices appointed by progressive Presidents—Democratic and Republican alike — would repudiate Lochner.

It seems Obama’s caricature is wildly at odds with the historical evidence.

One of the best cases for reconsidering Lochner comes from George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein in his book, “Rehabilitating Lochner.” Drawing on both previous legal scholarship and his own extensive historical research, Bernstein offers a definitive account of this misunderstood and unjustly maligned case. Not only did Lochner represent the victory of small-scale producers over large, politically connected special interests, Bernstein points out, but the ruling led directly to several of the Supreme Court’s most important early decisions in favor of civil rights and civil liberties under the 14th Amendment, including Buchanan v. Warley, the landmark 1917 case in which the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People scored its first victory before the Supreme Court.

However, in 1938 in the case of United States v Carolene Products Co., the court would abandon the majority opinion in Lochner and instead adopt a jurisprudence that resembled Justice Harlan’s dissent – moving from a presumption of liberty to a presumption of constitutionality. And in 1955 in the case of Williamson v Lee Optical, the Court would shift even further from Lochner’s presumption of liberty to a view that closely mirrored Holmes’ Judicial restraint in which a state’s police power to regulate the economy qualified the presumption of Constitutionality and made it nearly impossible to rebut.

When the Justices use Lochner as shorthand for what they consider the activist sins of their opponents, they are substituting empty rhetoric for meaningful constitutional argument.

The post The Legacy of Lochner first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
Election law Intelwars Non-citizen voting Supreme Court Voter integrity

Horowitz: So much for state election powers: SCOTUS blocks Kansas from requiring proof of citizenship to vote

We’ll likely have to carry around papers to show we were vaccinated in order to live, even unfreely with masks, in this society, but illegal aliens can vote. That is the upshot of the latest insidious Supreme Court decision to allow lower courts to shred all voter verification processes in election law.

For the past few weeks, we’ve been told “states’ rights” force us to pursue a “live and let live” policy toward state governors who violate the state’s election law to weaken voter integrity laws. However, this principle is evidently a one-way street and doesn’t apply to governors who want to follow, not break, state voter integrity laws. Then, the federal courts have every right to get involved and nullify those laws, and the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to be concerned about the 10th Amendment and Art. I Sec. 4, which dictate that state legislatures prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Kansas’ request (in Schwab v. Fish) to hear an appeal from the 10th Circuit, which ruled earlier this year that the state could not require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Amid a trend of states seizing boundless powers to crush the lives and liberty of citizens under the guise of coronavirus, evidently anyone can get standing to sue and block a state from merely ensuring non-citizens don’t vote.

In 2011, the duly elected Kansas legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Non-citizen voting is increasingly becoming a problem as the immigrant population grows and immigrants are automatically asked to register to vote when they obtain driver’s licenses. In many states, there is automatic voter registration of anyone on record as having a driver’s license, which includes legal immigrants in all states and illegal immigrants in some states. Just days after long lines were seen of illegal aliens registering for driver’s licenses in New York beginning last December, the state Senate passed a law to enact automatic voter registration. This will help get illegal aliens on the voter rolls as well. Almost all of the 15 states that grant licenses to illegal aliens also have automatic voter registration.

There are already numerous questions of non-citizens voting in this election, including in states where the outcome hinged on razor-thin margins. The Nevada GOP is alleging, based on subpoenaed DMV data, that “6,260 non-citizens were registered to vote and 3,987 non-citizens had voted” in this past election.

There is no greater state interest in enacting legislation than keeping the franchise in the hands of the citizenry. The Kansas law passed in 2011 by 111-11 in the House of Representatives and 36-3 in the Senate, with more than 70% of Democrats supporting it. Yet the same federal courts that believe we should butt out of the business of states that violate their own election laws to weaken verification suddenly have no problem intervening and nullifying state laws that strengthen voter verification.

In April, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated a lower court ruling that somehow asking for proof of citizenship violates the phantom Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and that the state interest does “not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote.” Shockingly, the two judges (the third passed away) concocted their own law that states must first “show that a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote” before enacting such measures.

So, while we are forced to show proof of citizenship to get a license and for many other public and private functions, states cannot require anyone to show papers to register to vote. I’m sure these same courts won’t find any 14th Amendment issues when states inevitably pass “show your papers” requirements for individuals to prove they were vaccinated before they can obtain basic services or even employment.

There is no more foundational election integrity measure than ensuring non-citizens aren’t voting. This is not some far-flung fear, but a prima facie concern. We have a record level of immigrants in this country, and the motor-voter laws seamlessly register anyone who signs up for a driver’s license with nothing more than a voluntary honor system for immigrants to self-report. If anything, non-citizens are often harmed by weak verification, because some unwittingly sign up to vote and then are subject to deportation for violating federal law.

And talk about burdening fundamental rights! We are told that states can now place curfews on our movement, cover our mouths, vaccinate our bodies, shut down our businesses, schools, and churches, and track our every movement. They can even place travel bans on other states, something states couldn’t do even under the Articles of Confederation. But the minute they try to stop non-citizens from voting … suddenly state powers go out the window.

There is a very salient point many will miss in this case. I warned earlier this week that if Republicans give up the fight on election integrity this year out of supposed respect for state powers, they will never be able to stop voter fraud, even if they win full control of the contested states. As we are seeing in every red state that tried to enact voter integrity laws, the same Supreme Court that seems too bashful to override state election policy decisions when they weaken existing integrity laws is suddenly eager to torch those states that try to enforce the laws and protect the franchise.

It is self-evident that we have a two-tiered justice system in this country: one for the elites, criminals, and illegal aliens, and the other for we the sheeple. It’s just a shame we can’t get illegal aliens to sue the results of this election or to sue against the heavy-handed coronavirus edicts suspending civil liberties.

Share
Categories
birth certificates Intelwars parents same sex couples States Supreme Court

Horowitz: Where’s the federalism now? Supreme Court forces Indiana to deny biology, declare adoptive mothers biological parents in same-sex couples

Remember all those “principled” hot takes about the need to keep the Supreme Court out of state issues, even when those state violations of election law infect a presidential election? The federal courts are forcing states to alter human biology on birth certificates, to comport with the demands of the rainbow jihad coalition for states not only to recognize gay relationships as marriages, but to record their adoptions as if gay partners biologically birthed the children. Where are the principled federalism arguments against this intrusion into the states’ handling of marriage and family recognition?

This week, the “conservative” Supreme Court once against engaged in “judicial restraint” against an activist lower court by refusing to revisit a past activist ruling of its own that compels states to recognize adoptive same-sex couples as biological parents on birth certificates.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to the state of Indiana in Box v. Henderson, a case where an Indiana federal district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Indiana must record the “wife” of a woman giving birth through artificial insemination as a biological parent of the child. We already know that “follow the science” means follow flat-earth theories to the radical left, but these courts have now said that the 14th Amendment requires us to contort biology. Rep. James F. Wilson (R-Iowa) the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee back in the 1860s who helped draft the 14th Amendment, never envisioned this outcome when he spoke emphatically that the 14th Amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.”

By denying cert in this case, the high court demonstrates that we still don’t even have four votes on the court to uphold biology and basic state powers. I’m sure all of those “principled” conservatives who were concerned about the Supreme Court getting involved in state election laws (that were already abrogated by lower federal courts) will cry states’ rights in the face of federal courts getting involved in the illogical contortions of state birth certificates.

This case manifestly and disturbingly reveals the one-way ratchet that characterizes the Supreme Court, even with a supposed conservative majority. Once a radical ruling is issued, the majority of conservative judges will only debate the parameters of expanding that ruling, but will never roll it back. Once the ruling is expanded, they will make peace with it.

Anyone with a modicum of originalist jurisprudence must concede that nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to force states to recognize gay marriage. No conservative justice can justify maintaining the Obergefell decision. But of course, none of us expected that much from these people. What we did expect, however, was that at least the most radical expansions of Obergefell would be reversed.

This Indiana decision is built upon the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Pavan v. Smith, exactly a year after Obergefell. In that case, the Supreme Court said that not only are lesbian couples in which one woman is impregnated through artificial insemination entitled to have both their names on the child’s birth certificate, but also that the certificate must be as if the “husband” of the duo is the actual biological “father” of the child. John Roberts, even though he wrote the dissent in Obergefell, joined with Anthony Kennedy and the other four liberals. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

It’s important to recognize that the 2017 Arkansas case went well beyond Obergefell. As is the case with all births from artificial insemination, Arkansas law recognizes the non-biological father on the birth certificate, governed by a different process from that for biological fathers on birth certificates. The state fully complied with the insane Obergefell decision and recognized same-sex couples and indeed placed the second “mother” on the birth certificate through the process used to record non-biological parents. But the plaintiffs wanted them to be treated as identical to biological parents, in defiance of nature, common sense, and sanity.

As Justice Gorsuch put it in his dissent in 2017, a state has an interest in preserving the integrity of biological birth certificates, “ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship, or susceptibility to genetic disorders.”

This new case from Indiana would have been the perfect case to hear and use as a vehicle to reverse this radical opinion now that there are supposedly two more conservatives on the court. The fact that the court is allowing this to stand in the Indiana case means that either Justice Kavanaugh is joining Roberts in his desire to preserve all bad court decisions at any cost, or a combination of one or more of the others is reluctant to broach this issue.

How far we have fallen from just 2013, when Anthony Kennedy himself wrote in the Windsor case, “Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” And “the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”

More broadly, what this demonstrates about Republican judges (and politicians) is that they are not governed by some sort of consistent principle about the reading of laws, constitutional construction, respect for state powers, or the rule of law. The fix is in. When it comes to state decisions that interfere with the rainbow jihad’s priorities, those policies are to be stopped at all costs. No belief in proper constitutional interpretation or the principles of federalism will change that outcome. If that requires courts to dictate to states that a human being can have two biological mothers, then so be it. It’s “the law of the land” and all in “the science.”

Contrast this to coronavirus fascism or the violations of election law this year. Suddenly, the Supreme Court discovers its affinity for state sovereignty. Why? Because that is what the political elites demand based on the political outcome of the legal question.

Anyone who still thinks we have a conservative court to stop the existing bleeding in the lower courts, much less to overturn past Supreme Court cases, is simply not paying attention. As citizens living in blue states, we are on our own. However, even if we win power in red states, we may as well live in blue states, because the federal courts are in charge. Federalism for thee, but not for me.

Share
Categories
Election law federal courts Illegal court rulings Intelwars Judicial meddling Supreme Court

Horowitz: Now the federal judiciary has forfeited its right to determine ALL political questions

Republicans believe that states are in charge of elections. … I’m having a hard time figuring out the basis for that lawsuit.” ~Sen. Lamar Alexander, Meet the Press, Dec. 13, 2020

So Republicans plan to ignore every illegal court ruling overturning state voter integrity laws in the future, right?

Ever since I published my book on the judiciary in 2016, I’ve been asking: Is there anything that is out of bounds for a court to do, or are courts like an all-powerful God? Well, over the weekend, we got our answer.

We finally discovered an instance in which the courts will enforce requirements for standing and refuse to adjudicate broadly political questions. Now it’s time for conservatives to treat every court decision that violates rules of standing and the principle of federalism as null and void. Will all these principled “conservatives” who are cheering the court’s decision in the Texas lawsuit stand with us in opposing judicial supremacism in all forms?

In recent years, the federal courts have waded into every political issue imaginable. They have prevented states from enforcing federal immigration law, while not only greenlighting states to criminalize federal law, but preventing the federal government from cutting off funding to sanctuary states. They have prevented states from defining marriage, upholding basic sexuality, or placing commonsense health regulations on abortion clinics. They have prevented states from cleaning out homeless encampments and from simply declining to fund castration “surgery” in prison or through Medicaid funding. They have also prevented states from requiring able-bodied Medicaid recipients attempt to seek employment.

For a while, it appeared there was nothing a state (and even the feds) could do without a federal court violating the rules of standing to give some straw-man third-party organization (often on behalf of illegal aliens) standing to sue to overturn the outcome of a fundamentally political issue and decide it with finality.

However, those same courts have no problem when states thumb their noses at federal immigration law or when they violate every individual right known to man in under the guise of fighting coronavirus.

In other words, these judges believe in states’ rights when the outcome benefits the Left, and they believe in a strong federal government with final court adjudication when it benefits the Left as well. They believe in protecting “rights” when they are invented, but not real rights spelled out in the Constitution. Heads the Left wins; tails we lose.

Which brings us to the Friday night decision not to take up the Texas lawsuit alleging that four states violated election law in a way that tainted the outcome of a federal election. Many conservative pundits and elected Republicans are cheering this decision as a much-needed exercise in judicial restraint, respect for state powers, and properly defending the rules of Article III standing. After all, we shouldn’t have federal courts determining political questions, such as the results of a presidential race (never mind that the lawsuit was not seeking a determination on who won, a decision ultimately left to the state legislatures and congressional certification).

There is one problem with this line of thought. The only reason we are in the position we are today with a broken election system full of mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting is precisely because the federal courts officiously commandeered state election laws for the past generation. Yes, the federal courts have butted in to every state decision on election law – except those interventions were OK because they benefited Democrats.

Republicans have controlled many key state governments in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan from 2010 to 2018 and passed voter integrity laws or enforced existing ones during those years. Every step of the way, federal courts gave standing to straw-men plaintiffs to block every election integrity measure imaginable. In fact, to this day, Democrats hold the governorship in North Carolina solely because of ballot harvesting that is prohibited under state law but forced upon the state by the Fourth Circuit. To this day, photo ID is not required in North Carolina despite conservatives working hard to enact it into law. The same Fourth Circuit gutted it. Democrats also hold two extra House seats thanks to the Fourth Circuit destroying the election map.

Likewise, in Arizona, Republicans have controlled state government for as far as one can remember. Over the past generation, nearly every voter integrity law has been thrown out by the Ninth Circuit, often in cases where the laws at issue were approved by ballot initiative with overwhelming support. The Supreme Court has sided with the wayward lower court most of the time.

Every time Arizona has tried to stem the tide of illegal aliens, the courts have come after the state. This has created a cascading effect of illegal aliens being able to remain in large urban areas and be counted in the Census. Numerous pieces of federal legislation have been passed by a margin that is entirely garnered through counting of illegal aliens in the Census. How is that lawful?

Thus, the entire premise and precedent for the current electoral model that Democrats abused this year was created wholesale by the lower federal courts that the pathetic Supreme Court has failed to police. Specifically, in this election, the League of Women voters sued in federal court to have Pennsylvania’s signature validation process on mail-in ballots countermanded (League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 2:20-cv-03850-PBT, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2020)). As a result of that federal lawsuit, the Pennsylvania secretary of state made a settlement that unilaterally gutted state law, allowing hundreds of thousands of extra ballots to be counted without proper verification, which is likely why the rejection rate this year for mail-in ballots was impossibly low.

A similar settlement resulting from a federal lawsuit took place in Georgia as well (Democratic Party of Georgia v. Raffensperger, No. 1:19-cv-5028-WMR (N.D. Ga.)). As always, the federal courts tampered with every aspect of North Carolina’s election process, but Democrats came up slightly short, although suspiciously close.

Which brings us back to the Supreme Court. Notice a pattern here? There never seems to be a problem of federalism and Article III standing when lower federal courts want to shred existing state election law in order to benefit Democrats. Somehow, the Supreme Court rarely reverses these opinions before the elections. Then, when we seek redress for the fallout that was largely enabled over the years, and during this particular election, from the federal judiciary’s foray into state powers in the first place, we are told that the Supreme Court wants to stay out.

As we speak, a federal judge in Georgia is considering whether to add 200,000 voters to the Georgia voter rolls prior to the runoff elections. These registrations were removed pursuant to state voter integrity laws and section 8 of the motor voter law, which requires states to “make a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.” Watch for the same “principled” conservatives to have no problem with the Supreme Court “respecting” federalism by “staying out” of a state political fight when their own lower courts overturned state law to begin with.

This is not about Trump, and it’s not even just about future elections. This is about a fundamentally rigged judiciary and political system that has one rule of engagement that is consistent: Heads the Democrats win, tails the people lose.

Republican establishment types will tell you to look forward to “the next election,” when Republicans will win back a lot of power. Let’s indulge this line of thought for a moment. Let’s forget about the fact that Republicans can no longer win elections because of the election law fraud that is being enabled (and often perpetrated) by the courts and the political system. For argument’s sake, let’s say Republicans win back the trifecta control of government in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in 2022 as they did in 2010. And let’s also indulge the myth that somehow these Republicans will actually pass worthy legislation on numerous issues that are important to us. Just understand that every one of them will be “struck down” by the courts.

How do I know? This is what has already happened last decade, when Republicans won these states after 2010. I’ll never forget the tears in the eyes of one North Carolina activist who fought so hard to pass photo ID requirements when she saw, following the Fourth Circuit ruling, a sign outside a polling station inviting people to vote without photo verification. Despite photo ID requirements being codified in the state’s constitution, the federal courts have handed Democrats one victory after another. We can’t even long for a better day or to perform better next time because we can no longer win elections due to the fraud, not to mention the fact that these very same courts that are so hands-off suddenly become hands-on when we gain power.

Phony conservatives and every Democrat seem to finally be espousing my view on the judiciary – the view of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln rejected the notion that “the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions.”

Well, just last week, a federal judge ruled that Trump must issue citizenship documents to illegal aliens granted amnesty by Obama. Where are the questions of Article III standing for illegal aliens? Where are the skeptics of redressability on how a court can wade into immigration questions or bind one president to the unilateral moves of a predecessor who said 22 times that his actions were illegal? “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself,” Obama declared in response to calls for him to grant amnesty that later became known as DACA.

In fact, Obama was right back then. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69 when contrasting the power of a president to that of a king: “The one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens.” Now we are to believe that a federal district judge has more power than a president or a king?

If we had a sane party of Republicans, they would use this ruling as an impetus to ignore every illegal federal court decision. They would adopt Lincoln’s view as expressed in the sixth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1868: “Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it.”

Then again, we don’t have any party today that cares about the Constitution or is willing to fight for it on any issue. We must all look beyond the idolatry of the Republican Party and a “conservative” Supreme Court if we are to maintain some semblance of republicanism in any part of this country.

Share
Categories
Bill pascrell Campaign 2020 Donald Trump Intelwars Nancy Pelosi Supreme Court Texas lawsuit

House Democrat urges Pelosi to punish, retaliate against Republicans who supported Texas SCOTUS lawsuit

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) is asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to punish those House Republicans who supported the Texas lawsuit that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Lone Star State’s last ditch effort to swing the election in President Donald Trump’s favor, saying the lawsuit had a “lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

What is Pascrell saying?

The New Jersey Democrat said that Republican lawmakers and Republican congressmen-elect should be punished for supporting the lawsuit.

According to Pascrell, those Republicans who supported the lawsuit are violating the Constitution, and therefore should be sanctioned and not seated in Congress.

“The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing document safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union,” Pascrell wrote to Pelosi, citing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress,” he continued. “These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the Rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid Members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber.”

“Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator,” Pascrell demanded.

Pascrell went on to compare this moment in American history to Civil War-era division.

“Rising from the embers of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to prevent the destruction of the United States from without and within. The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment,” he said.

Anything else?

Since the election, Pascrell has been on a war-path defending Joe Biden’s apparent election win.

As TheBlaze reported, Pascrell said in late November that Trump and his “enablers” should be “tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution.”

“Donald Trump and members of his administration have committed innumerable crimes against the United States,” Pascrell said, claiming the Trump administration has “engaged in treachery, in treason.”

“Therefore, in 2021 the entire Trump administration must be fully investigated by the Department of Justice and any other relevant offices,” Pascrell added.

Then, just days later, Pascrell revealed attempts to disbar members of Trump’s legal team who were challenging the outcome of the election.

Share
Categories
2020 blue states brainwashingTexas Constitution Donald Trump election fight Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden left vs. right paradigm lie Presidential Election red and blue red states selection States Supreme Court term United States

The Stage Has Been Set For An Epic Battle Between Red States And Blue States At The Supreme Court

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse Blog. 

We have never seen anything like Texas v. Pennsylvania in the history of the Supreme Court.  A very large group of red states has lined up behind Texas, and a very large group of blue states is backing the other side.  I cannot recall another Supreme Court case in which so many states have sought to be involved on some level, and so to me, it would be unthinkable for the Supreme Court to try to slap this suit away as if it was insignificant.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so if the Supreme Court is not willing to properly deal with the grievances that the red states have there is no other place for them to go.

I believe that the Supreme Court is going to handle this case with the seriousness that it deserves, and that means that we are about to witness an absolutely epic legal battle between red states and blue states.

In an article that I published yesterday, I explained that the Court had required the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to file their responses by Thursday at 3 PM, and that is precisely what happened.

But a whole bunch of other parties decided to get involved in this case as well.  The following are all of the updates that were posted on the Supreme Court website on Thursday alone

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief not accepted for filing. (December 10, 2020) (corrected motion electronically filed)

Response to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or stay from defendant Wisconsin filed.

Opposition to Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and its motion for preliminary relief from defendant Georgia filed.

Opposition to motions for leave to file a bill of complaint and for injunctive relief from defendant Michigan filed.

Opposition to motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or stay from defendant Pennsylvania filed.

Motion for leave to file amicus brief from the District of Columbia on behalf of 22 States and Territories filed.

Motion to Intervene and Proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention of State of Missouri submitted.

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief for Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly submitted.

Motion of Certain Select Pennsylvania State Senators for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Christian Family Coalition for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of Bryan Cutler Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Kerry Benninghoff Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives submitted.

For Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Motion of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, Senator Lora Reinbold, Representative David Eastment, et al. (Elected State Officials) for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of City of Detroit submitted.

Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff submitted.

Complaint in Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Amicus brief of Ga. state Sen. William Ligon et al. submitted.

Motion of L. Lin Wood for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Steve Bullock, in his official capacity as Governor of Montana for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

I have never seen a flurry of activity like this for any other Supreme Court case.

As you look over that list, you will see that there are all sorts of big names on there, and nearly all states are represented in at least some capacity.

But there is one huge name that is completely missing.

For some reason, Joe Biden has decided not to be involved in this case at all.

I think that Joe Biden’s lawyers are telling him that it would give the case credibility if they got involved and they don’t want to do that.

But to me, this is a major tactical mistake on their part.  If Texas wins this case, Joe Biden will probably not be the one sitting in the Oval Office for the next four years.  With so much on the line, if I was a presidential candidate I would want to make sure that my interests were being represented properly in this case.

In any event, this case is moving forward, and the outcome will make history no matter which way it goes.

Needless to say, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are very upset about the suit that Texas has filed.  In fact, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro went so far as to call the suit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”

The Pennsylvania AG’s office described the Texas suit as a crass political maneuver to extend Trump’s term.

‘Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,’ they urged.

Of course that is a bunch of nonsense.

As I detailed yesterday, Texas is alleging very serious violations of the Electors Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in all four states, and the evidence clearly shows that those constitutional violations did indeed take place.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia would have us believe that Texas and other red states were not harmed by these constitutional violations, and they would have us believe that the Supreme Court could not possibly take any action even if there were constitutional violations because that would “disenfranchise” millions of voters.

But it wouldn’t disenfranchise those voters if the Court ordered new elections in those four states, and that is what I believe is the appropriate remedy in this case.

I know that is a minority viewpoint, but I am sticking with it.

On Thursday, the District of Columbia, 20 blue states, the Virgin Islands and Guam filed an amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

An amicus brief had already been filed by a coalition of red states on Wednesday, and on Thursday six of them actually asked the court to allow them to become co-plaintiffs

Missouri on Wednesday led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that supported the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four key swing states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden violated the Constitution by having their judicial and executive branches make changes to their presidential elections rather than their legislatures.

But the Thursday filing led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, which also includes Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, would make those states parties before the court in the case rather than just outside voices weighing in. President Trump’s campaign did the same on Wednesday.

Subsequently, 106 Republican members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of Texas.

That has got to carry a lot of weight with the Court.

At this point, the Court is essentially boxed into a corner.  If they throw this case aside very quickly, that will cause a massive uproar on the right.

But if they actually allow oral arguments and give this case the attention that it deserves, that will cause a massive uproar on the left.

Whatever they do, about half the country is going to be exceedingly angry.

And if Texas v. Pennsylvania ultimately results in Trump winning the election, we will witness a national temper tantrum that will shake our nation to the core.

We have reached one of the most critical moments in American history, and the future of our Republic hangs in the balance.

Historically, the Supreme Court likes to try to find an easy way out, and they may be very tempted to try to dispose of this case very quickly.

But that wouldn’t solve anything.  I think that it is a very ominous sign that there is so much open animosity between red states and blue states now.  Just like we witnessed prior to the Civil War, states are picking one side or the other, and talk of secession is starting to pick up steam.  In fact, it was the top headline on the Drudge Report on Thursday morning.

And if the Supreme Court ignores the clear constitutional violations that occurred during this election, that will only make things a lot worse.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in his complaint, either we have a Constitution or we don’t.

That is what Texas v. Pennsylvania is really all about, and in a few days we will have a clear answer to that question.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post The Stage Has Been Set For An Epic Battle Between Red States And Blue States At The Supreme Court first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

The Stage Has Been Set For An Epic Battle Between Red States And Blue States At The Supreme Court

We have never seen anything like Texas v. Pennsylvania in the history of the Supreme Court.  A very large group of red states has lined up behind Texas, and a very large group of blue states is backing the other side.  I cannot recall another Supreme Court case in which so many states have sought to be involved on some level, and so to me it would be unthinkable for the Supreme Court to try to slap this suit away as if it was insignificant.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so if the Supreme Court is not willing to properly deal with the grievances that the red states have there is no other place for them to go.

I believe that the Supreme Court is going to handle this case with the seriousness that it deserves, and that means that we are about to witness an absolutely epic legal battle between red states and blue states.

In an article that I published yesterday, I explained that the Court had required the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to file their responses by Thursday at 3 PM, and that is precisely what happened.

But a whole bunch of other parties decided to get involved in this case as well.  The following are all of the updates that were posted on the Supreme Court website on Thursday alone

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief not accepted for filing. (December 10, 2020) (corrected motion electronically filed)

Response to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or stay from defendant Wisconsin filed.

Opposition to Texas’s motion for leave to file bill of complaint and its motion for preliminary relief from defendant Georgia filed.

Opposition to motions for leave to file bill of complaint and for injunctive relief from defendant Michigan filed.

Opposition to motion for leave to file bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or stay from defendant Pennsylvania filed.

Motion for leave to file amicus brief from the District of Columbia on behalf of 22 States and Territories filed.

Motion to Intervene and Proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention of State of Missouri submitted.

Motion of State of Ohio for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief for Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff/Defendants of Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly submitted.

Motion of Certain Select Pennsylvania State Senators for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Christian Family Coalition for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of Bryan Cutler Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Kerry Benninghoff Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives submitted.

For Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Motion of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin, Senator Lora Reinbold, Representative David Eastment, et al. (Elected State Officials) for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Amicus brief of City of Detroit submitted.

Motion for Leave to File and Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff of Justice and Freedom Fund in Support of Plaintiff submitted.

Complaint in Intervention of Ron Heuer, et al. submitted.

Amicus brief of Ga. state Sen. William Ligon et al. submitted.

Motion of L. Lin Wood for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

Motion of Steve Bullock, in his official capacity as Governor of Montana for leave to file amicus brief submitted.

I have never seen a flurry of activity like this for any other Supreme Court case.

As you look over that list, you will see that there are all sorts of big names on there and nearly all states are represented in at least some capacity.

But there is one huge name that is completely missing.

For some reason, Joe Biden has decided not to be involved in this case at all.

I think that Joe Biden’s lawyers are telling him that it would give the case credibility if they got involved and they don’t want to do that.

But to me, this is a major tactical mistake on their part.  If Texas wins this case, Joe Biden will probably not be the one sitting in the Oval Office for the next four years.  With so much on the line, if I was a presidential candidate I would want to make sure that my interests were being represented properly in this case.

In any event, this case is moving forward, and the outcome will make history no matter which way it goes.

Needless to say, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are very upset about the suit that Texas has filed.  In fact, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro went so far as to call the suit a “seditious abuse of the judicial process”

The Pennsylvania AG’s office described the Texas suit as a crass political maneuver to extend Trump’s term.

‘Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,’ they urged.

Of course that is a bunch of nonsense.

As I detailed yesterday, Texas is alleging very serious violations of the Electors Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in all four states, and the evidence clearly shows that those constitutional violations did indeed take place.

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia would have us believe that Texas and other red states were not harmed by these constitutional violations, and they would have us believe that the Supreme Court could not possibly take any action even if there were constitutional violations because that would “disenfranchise” millions of voters.

But it wouldn’t disenfranchise those voters if the Court ordered new elections in those four states, and that is what I believe is the appropriate remedy in this case.

I know that is a minority viewpoint, but I am sticking with it.

On Thursday, the District of Columbia, 20 blue states, the Virgin Islands and Guam filed an amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

An amicus brief had already been filed by a coalition of red states on Wednesday, and on Thursday six of them actually asked the court to allow them to become co-plaintiffs

Missouri on Wednesday led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that supported the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four key swing states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden violated the Constitution by having their judicial and executive branches make changes to their presidential elections rather than their legislatures.

But the Thursday filing led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, which also includes Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, would make those states parties before the court in the case rather than just outside voices weighing in. President Trump’s campaign did the same on Wednesday.

Subsequently, 106 Republican members of the House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of Texas.

That has got to carry a lot of weight with the Court.

At this point, the Court is essentially boxed into a corner.  If they throw this case aside very quickly, that will cause a massive uproar on the right.

But if they actually allow oral arguments and give this case the attention that it deserves, that will cause a massive uproar on the left.

Whatever they do, about half the country is going to be exceedingly angry.

And if Texas v. Pennsylvania ultimately results in Trump winning the election, we will witness a national temper tantrum that will shake our nation to the core.

We have reached one of the most critical moments in American history, and the future of our Republic hangs in the balance.

Historically, the Supreme Court likes to try to find an easy way out, and they may be very tempted to try to dispose of this case very quickly.

But that wouldn’t solve anything.  I think that it is a very ominous sign that there is so much open animosity between red states and blue states now.  Just like we witnessed prior to the Civil War, states are picking one side or the other, and talk of secession is starting to pick up steam.  In fact, it was the top headline on the Drudge Report on Thursday morning.

And if the Supreme Court ignores the clear constitutional violations that occurred during this election, that will only make things a lot worse.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in his complaint, either we have a Constitution or we don’t.

That is what Texas v. Pennsylvania is really all about, and in a few days we will have a clear answer to that question.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
Arizona battleground states Dale Carpenter defendant states Donald Trump election fraud electors Headline News Intelwars Ken Paxton Lawsuit Supreme Court Texas

18 States Join Texas Supreme Court Election Lawsuit

Eighteen states, including Arizona, have now joined Texas in a Supreme Court lawsuit against the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief (amicus curiae) or ‘friend of the court’ brief was filed with the high court earlier Wednesday. The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia have all signed on to the brief that backs the Texas suit.

Arizona was the latest state to file an amicus brief on Wednesday bringing the total to 18 states.

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Just as predicted before the election even occurred, it would be contested and handled by the Supreme Court. The following article was written back in September:

More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election

According to the American Bar Association, “‘Friend of the court’ or amicus curiae briefs are often filed in appellate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, as well as intermediate courts of appeal. And there is considerable evidence that amicus briefs have influence.” On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant states to reply by 3 p.m. on Thursday, December 10.

“It’s not unusual,” SMU Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11. “I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.” Carpenter added: “Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January. The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.”

We will see.

 

The post 18 States Join Texas Supreme Court Election Lawsuit first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Constitution Donald Trump Election 2020 electors clause flip the election Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Ken Paxton Lawsuit outcome States Supreme Court Texas voters

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The End of the American Dream. 

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out.  The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election.

The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first.  But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.

And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.

So this is really happening.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all.

In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

And he is absolutely correct.  When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”

Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.

The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation

  • Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
  • Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
  • Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
  • Wisconsin: Lastly, Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

In addition, in his complaint, Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently

Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.

As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”

Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.

And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”.

Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.

But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.

Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy?

Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”

In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections, or alternatively, they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves.

And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.

Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum.  Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.

So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.

But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and his allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania, what happens next?

The big corporate news networks are trying to convince us that there is absolutely no way that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of President Trump and his allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania, but what if they are wrong?  The case is on the docket, and the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin have been ordered to file their responses by 3 PM on Thursday.  It appears that the Court understands the urgency of this matter, and they seem determined to move things along very quickly.  One way or the other, we should find out what they are thinking fairly rapidly.

In the first part of this series, I discussed the fact that 18 other states have now joined with Texas in arguing that the election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin cannot be allowed to stand.

And the more I examine the facts, the more I am convinced that their legal claims are right on target.

Everyone agrees that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin changed election rules without consulting their legislatures.  But the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the sole authority in determining how electors will be selected.  The rule changes that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin made were unconstitutional, and they had a material affect on the outcome in each of those states.

Similarly, everyone agrees that voters and ballots were treated very differently in left-leaning portions of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin than they were in right-learning portions of those states.  These are textbook violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court would have to be completely blind not to see that.

If the Supreme Court is faithful to the U.S. Constitution, the voting results in all four states will have to be thrown out.

But what happens then?

Well, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the Court to declare that all electoral votes from those four states should not be counted

In the suit, Paxton asks the high court to “declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”

I do not believe that the Court will do that, because that would disenfranchise all of the legal voters in all of those states.

Alternatively, the Court could choose to direct the state legislatures in each of those four states to choose their own slates of electors, but I don’t think that the Court would be willing to do that either.

Instead, I believe that the most likely remedy would be new elections.  That would be problematic as well, because the results of those elections may not be known before the electoral votes are supposed to be counted in Washington on January 6th.

But even though new elections would be a chaotic solution, I believe that it is the best of the choices.

In any event, if the current election results are overturned by the Supreme Court and President Trump ultimately ends up winning, it will set off the biggest temper tantrum in all of U.S. history.

We have already seen widespread rioting, looting, arson and violence in our major cities all throughout 2020, and we have continued to see more civil unrest in recent weeks.  Just check out what just happened in Portland.

But if Trump ends up getting a second term after everything that has already transpired, we are going to see an explosion of anger that will be off the charts.

Already, politicians in some states are making decisions based on fear of what could potentially happen.  For example, members of the state legislature in Georgia were apparently afraid to call a special session to address problems with their elections because they were reportedly afraid that Atlanta “will burn” if they did…

In an interview with The Georgia Star News, State Representative Colton Moore (R-Trenton) shared that legislators are gun-shy about calling a special session to address the general and runoff elections.

“The attitudes that a lot of Republicans had was, ‘Let’s just say out of it and let the court decide.’ One legislator said [if they did call a session that] Atlanta will burn down a second time,” he said. “My personal theory is that the governor has prevented a special session because roughly half of the Republicans in the house don’t want to be responsible for that burden.”

I guarantee you that the potential for violence will weigh heavily on the minds of members of the Supreme Court as they consider the merits of Texas v. Pennsylvania.

I wish that wasn’t true, but the truth is that members of the Supreme Court are humans too.  If they are responsible for Biden losing the election, there is a very real possibility that radicals will violently attack them, their families and their homes.

Hopefully, there will be at least five justices that will be courageous enough to do what is right for the country no matter what the short-term consequences are.  As Sean Hannity recently explained, we have reached an absolutely critical moment in our history and the American people deserve answers…

“The country deserves it. You deserve it,” Hannity argued. “We, the people, deserve it. I don’t know what the justices are going to do, but the American people deserve answers. We need to have confidence in both the integrity and the results of every state’s election, in the process, because we have millions of innocent Americans in states where the law, the Constitution were not followed. They are, then, disenfranchised in a corrupt process.”

But no matter what happens, it is likely that the divisions in this country are just going to continue to grow deeper and deeper.

And as they get deeper, many are wondering if we will be able to stay united as a single nation.  For example, Rush Limbaugh seems to think that the U.S. is rapidly approaching a breaking point

“There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.”

“I know that there’s a sizable and growing sentiment for people who believe that that is where we’re headed whether we want to or not. Whether we want to go there or not.”

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution, and the frustration on both sides is only going to continue to grow.

Whether it is now or later, it appears to be inevitable that there will be a lot more civil unrest in our major cities, and that is extremely unfortunate.

In the beginning, the United States was united by a single set of values and principles, and those values and principles helped to make us into the greatest nation on the entire planet.

But now we have abandoned those values and principles, and as a result we have a giant mess on our hands.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
Election 2020 Intelwars Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas trump

President Trump asks Ted Cruz to argue Texas case before SCOTUS: report

President Donald Trump has reportedly asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to argue Texas’ lawsuit against four battleground states before the U.S. Supreme Court.

What are the details?

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the president asked Cruz the night before if he would be willing to present the case filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which accuses officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin of exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to unconstitutionally expand mail-in voting for the Nov. 3 election.

The suit seeks to delay the Electoral College vote until nationwide investigations into potential voter fraud are completed. President Trump and his campaign have filed dozens of lawsuits in numerous states contesting the results of the election that mainstream media has roundly declared for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

On Monday, Cruz
offered to argue an election lawsuit spearheaded by Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), if the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. But the high court denied the case the next day.

The Texas senator issued a response to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Pennsylvania case, saying in a statement:

“I am disappointed that the Court decided not to hear the case challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. The anger and division we see across the Nation needs resolution. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passes a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition. This appeal filed raised important and serious legal issues, and I believe the Court had a responsibility to ensure our elections follow the law and the Constitution.”

Cruz has argued several cases before the Supreme Court in the past, most when he served as solicitor general for the state of Texas. As of this writing, he has not issued a public response to The Times’ report, nor has the president.

Momentum behind the Texas case built up considerably on Wednesday, after several Republican state attorneys general issued statements expressing their endorsements of the lawsuit.

Trump vowed on Twitter, “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”

He added later, “Wow! At least 17 States have joined Texas in the extraordinary case against the greatest Election Fraud in the history of the United States. Thank you!”

Share
Categories
Cooper v Aaron Court Cases Intelwars Judicial supremacy Judicial Universality Judiciary Supremacy Supreme Court

The Myths of Cooper v. Aaron

In his paper, “The Irrepressible Myth of Cooper v. Aaron” published by the Georgetown Law Journal, Josh Blackman writes,  “Despite its constitutional provenance and majestic grandeur, the Supreme Court of the United States operates like any other court. Although its judgments bind the parties before the Court, its precedents are not self-executing for nonparties.”

The distinction between the Supreme Court’s judgments and precedents is often conflated due to Cooper v. Aaron. This landmark 1958 decision was spurred by the desegregation crisis in Little Rock, Arkansas. Cooper articulated two concepts under which the Supreme Court’s precedents operate as binding judgments on everyone. First, the Justices announced the doctrine that came to be known as judicial supremacy: a simple majority of the Supreme Court could now declare, with finality, the “supreme Law of the Land.” Second, Cooper asserted a principle this Article calls judicial universality: the Supreme Court’s constitutional interpretations obligate not only the parties in a given case, but also other similarly situated parties in later cases.

Cooper, which was signed by all nine Justices, represented that these two doctrines were “basic” and premised on “settled doctrine.”

Not so.

Blackman argues that these principles were in fact novel assertions of judicial power that were and remain entirely inconsistent with how all courts, including the Supreme Court, operate. Through a careful study of the papers of Justices Black, Brennan, Burton, Clark, Douglas, Frankfurter, Harlan, and Chief Justice Warren, Blackman exposes the constitutional origins of this irrepressible myth.

Cooper arose in a very tumultuous time in American history. Since the New Deal era, the Court had been looking for the right opportunity to undo the ruling in the 1896 anti-canonical case of Plessy v Ferguson that created the “separate but equal” mandate. This opportunity came in what would become one of the most important cases in the entire history of the Republic. Brown v Board of Education (1954).

At the time, nearly two dozen states racially segregated their schools. But Brown only considered the constitutionality of the laws in four of those states: Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia & Delaware. In a unanimous decision, the Warren Court found that segregated public schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. However, the Court did not order that all schools nationwide must desegregate immediately. Instead, the Court ordered another round of oral arguments to decide how Brown should be implemented

One year later, in Brown v Board of Education II (1955) –or simply Brown II – the Justices issued an order to the lower courts in Kansas, South Carolina and Virginia: “Enter such orders and decrees as are consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to their cases.” Officials in these three States were now bound by the Supreme Court’s judgment to integrate their schools with “all deliberate speed.” (The Delaware schools had already found that the segregated schools were unlawful.)

But what about other states that were not a party to Brown? Cooper v Aaron (1958) would resolve this question.

In 1955 the Little Rock, Arkansas school board approved a plan for gradual integration. However, the so-called “Massive Resistance” spread to Arkansas. Citizens approved an amendment to the state constitution that opposed Brown and desegregation. Based on that amendment a State Court judge issued an injunction against members of the little rock school board. They were ordered to stop the implementation of the federal court’s integration plan at Central High School.

Very often, when the courts are deciding issues in a tumultuous time, out of necessity, they sometimes reach too far. And in the years since this case, the court has somewhat equilibrated. Certain aspects of that decision they have relied on; certain aspects they haven’t relied on. Blackman’s paper focuses on two particular aspects of the Cooper decision that he refers to as “irrepressible myths.”

He defines two different concepts that are often conflated -the judgment of a court and the courts precedent-

When Smith sues Jones, there is no doubt that the decision binds Smith and Jones. This is the basic legal principle of estoppel procedure. But when Smith sues Jones, Bill cannot be bound by that case, as he was not a party to it. That would violate the basic rules of procedure and fairness. Yet when it comes to the Supreme Court, people flip that on its head. They say “well the Supreme Court has ruled that makes it binding on everyone everywhere.”

That cannot be the case but the Supreme Court’s precedents are controlling for all courts. So when the Little Rock Central High School said ‘I don’t care I’m going to keep segregating my school. I don’t care what the Brown ruling said.’ I can be sued. And a state judge or a district judge can bind you, to enjoin you to comply with Brown. But that additional step of converting a precedent to a judgment is very important, especially in civil rights litigation, though it’s often not very well understood. And the reason many people fail to understand this is because of Cooper v Aaron.

This is due to the two aforementioned concepts that come from Cooper one is judicial supremacythe other -judicial universality- Judicial supremacy holds that with a simple majority vote of the court they can declare, with finality the supreme law of the land.

Judicial universality stems from a paper written by Josh Blackman and Howard Wassermann. This is the notion that the Supreme Court constitutional interpretation obligates not only the parties in a different case but also parties in a similar case. In other words, when Smith sues Jones and there is a final judgment, it also binds Bill. The Court’s unitary opinion in Cooper, signed by all nine justices (which is very rare) says these aspects were basic and relied on settled doctrine. ‘The Irrepressible Myth’ takes the position that this particular aspect of the decision is not correct. These were broad novel and unprecedented assertions of power that are inconsistent with how all courts operate yet five decades later these myths remain.

The phrase irrepressible myths comes from a paper written by John Hart Ely on what he called “The Irrepressible Myth of Erie” in the Harvard law review in 1974; challenging the orthodox interpretation of the Eerie Railroad v Tompkins decision, which seemed to purport as a single command, three distinct standards laid out in the Constitution.

The concept of ‘The Irrepressible Myth’ has since been frequently adopted by Constitutional Scholars to refer to any case, doctrine, or assertion made by the Court that has been factually disproven, but seems to carry on all the same in the collective memory of Constitutional lawyers, scholars and amongst the general public.

Given the continued existence of the myths in Cooper, which still persist five decades later, Blackman sought to bring something new to the discussion in his paper, “The Irrepressible Myth of Cooper v. Aaron.”

After examining the papers of Justices Hugo Black, William Brennan, Harold Burton, Tom Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter John Marshall Harlan and Chief Justice Earl Warren. The only Justice excluded was Charles Whittaker who simply did not have any collection of papers from which to draw from. These papers were important because Cooper was signed by all nine justices. Even though Justice Brennan was the lead draftsman, the others were responsible for writing comments. More often than not, a Justice ignores comments, but here, Brennan had to get everyone on the same page. For the most part, he listened to his brethren and incorporated their notes into the final opinion. Because of this, you can actually look at these documents and develop a red-line mentality and track the changes in their drafts to see how the document evolved.

In his paper, Blackman creates a coherent narrative revealing how the message in Cooper evolved through six distinct drafts as the opinion was prepared in the course of about 10 days or so – it was done very very quickly.

This all came about as part of a battle against the anti-canonical doctrine of Plessy v Ferguson (1896). While challenges to institutionalized racial segregation can be traced back to the Progressive era of the 1920s and 1930s with cases brought by the NAACP that challenged “Separate but Equal” and that laid the foundation for the then proto-doctrine of Substantive Due Process, these early victories spurred the school desegregation cases of the 1950s that, for the first time, sought to take on and overturn Plessy directly.

This is where both Blackman’s paper and the modern story of desegregation officially begin with Brown v Board of Education (1954) and its follow-up case Brown v Board of Education II (1955). Brown II did not purport to desegregate schools immediately. Instead, it ordered desegregation take place “with all deliberate speed.” The idea behind that now famous instruction was to let the local courts craft mandates and injunctions to deal with each situation as it came up. Brown II applied this to North Carolina & Virginia. A similar principle was applied to Washington DC in the companion case Boling v Sharpe (1954) that dealt with school segregation in federal law, which was struck down as a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

That brings us to Little Rock and the Little Rock Independent School district. It was not a party to Brown.

So was the Little Rock school district bound by the decision? The simple answer is no. Recall our earlier example – when Smith sues Jones Bill is not bound.

As it turns out, the Little Rock School Board, which was elected, and at the time made up of mostly segregationists, decided it was not going to go along with this unless they were dragged kicking and screaming.

Ultimately, a federal district court in Little Rock issued a desegregation order to integrate the schools, including Little Rock Central High School. Meanwhile, a state court – the Pulaski County Circuit Court – issued an injunction saying don’t integrate the high school.

In effect, we had two different courts within the same jurisdiction issuing two different orders. The federal court was saying integrate; the state court was saying do not integrate. Now, most would assume that, of course, the federal court prevails. But that’s not the case. And nothing in the supremacy clause of the Constitution states that. State courts and federal courts have equal authortiy to interpret the Constitution.

The conflict though arises when you’re a state official asking yourself “Which court do I listen to?”  If I listen to the federal court the state court might hold me in contempt if I listen to the state court the federal court can hold me in contempt.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve that kind of tension. This is how the conflict in Little Rock began. Then it got worse as becoming what you might refer to as a game of injunctive whack-a-mole. A district court issued a ruling binding the school board. The governor showed up with the National Guard to block the black children from entering the school. The federal district court issued an injunction against the governor and the National Guard. At that point, the Little Rock Police department, which was not bound by the prior injunction, showed up to keep the black children from entering the school. At this point, we have a crisis because the officials are taking advantage of the distinction between judgment and precedent. If you find yourselves wondering where these Arkansas racists got this quasi-evil tactic from, you may be surprised by the answer… Abraham Lincoln

A lot of the stretches back to the abolitionist movement and Lincoln’s argument that the Dred Scott decision only controlled Dred Scott and Sanford because the U.S. government was not a party to the case. It didn’t even file an amicus brief; it couldn’t be bound by Chief Justice Roger Taney’s now reviled ruling- and so the southern manifesto traces its roots back to Lincoln.

Bizarrely, Brennan’s precedent in Cooper traces back to Steven Douglas. Douglas didn’t have to abide by Dred Scott. The Supreme Court is the keeper of the Constitution so everything is backward, right? The segregationists are siding with Lincoln and the federal court are invoking Douglas.

Ultimately, President Eisenhower sent in troops in a very famous scene where they escort the Little Rock nine up the steps to the classroom. Eisenhower was deliberate and very careful in his wording in the executive order he issued, citing the district court ruling and said that was what he was enforcing. He didn’t mention the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms held in regard to Eisenhower was he never came out in support of Brown.

Eisenhower remained ambivalent toward Brown and never said much about it. But he said he would enforce the district court rulings. Schools could not disregard them. So at that point, students were escorted into the school, Byt the district court did something that was very much unexpected. It granted a 30-month extension for the integration plan. The judge said that because there was chaos and bedlam and turmoil, he couldn’t allow this integration order to go into effect.

The 8th circuit then reversed that saying that all deliberate speed means now. The 8th circuit stayed its decision then an appeal went to the Supreme Court. We should be careful to remember that with Cooper v Aaron what was at issue were the decisions by the members of the school board. It wasn’t Faubus versus Aaron. (There was another case involving Faubus, this was not it.)

The Supreme Court held that the 30-month extension was not consistent with all deliberate speed. As Chief Justice Warren stated: “Merely having chaos on the ground did not justify two full years of continuing non-integration.” But the Court didn’t stop there; upon review of the opinion of the 8th circuit court, it held that the first 17 pages of the opinion were enough to dispose of this case.

But the Court then moves on to the last two pages of the public opinion, which is almost exclusively the focus of the second part of Blackman’s article. This section answers whether the Arkansas governor was bound to enforce Brown even though he was not a party to that case. And this is where the Court develops the irrepressible myths that Blackman identifies.

First, there is Judicial Supremacy. There is a single sentence in Cooper that sums it up very well. The court says “the interpretation of the 14th amendment enunciated by the court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land.” That is it’s not just the 14th amendment that’s the supreme law of the land, it’s the Court’s interpretation of that amendment that is itself the supreme law of the land.

The second principle which this article calls Judicial Universality. The best summary for that is found written by Justice Breyer in his book: “Making Democracy Work.”  Breyer wrote: “The court in Cooper actually decided that the constitution obligated other government institutions to follow the Court’s interpretation. Not just in a particular case but in similar cases as well.”

In his article, Blackman asserts that neither of these statements can possibly be true. If a simple majority vote in the Supreme Court could be declared the supreme law of the land and the other majority could not change it absent a constitutional amendment. And under our foundational principle of jurisdiction Smith versus Jones- courts can only bind the parties in any given case. The mere fact that the Supreme Court is supreme doesn’t change these facts. Critically, with respect to Judicial Universality, no court since has ever reached these conclusions. And with respect to both principles, no court before has ever reached these conclusions.

This was very much a product of a serious crisis that this article freely concedes – and I emphatically agree – was above the justices’ power. In fact, the Court’s opinion had virtually no practical effect.

The Little Rock school crisis continued unabated. Immediately after Cooper was decided, the Arkansas governor transferred all the public schools to private charters thereby getting out of the state action doctrine. Private charter schools weren’t bound by the 14th amendment, so for a full year, there were no public schools in Little Rock. What broke this log jam? It wasn’t a court. It was more moderate members being elected to the school board. They then agreed to engage with the reintegration plan.

So despite the Supreme Court’s opinion noble opinion, it had zero effect practical effect.

In the end, the Supreme Court “supremacy” didn’t go very far. In the 5 years after Cooper, districts across the South basically ignored it. Did the Supreme Court Grant Certiorari? Not even once. Despite numerous cert petitions from segregated school districts across the South, the Court wouldn’t take any of those cases. It just looked the other way.

It’s really easy for lawyers in Washington D.C. to sit in their marble palace and issue these opinions. It’s a very different matter putting them into effect.

The third part of Blackman’s article traces the evolution of the doctrines of judicial supremacy and universality throughout the six drafts of the Cooper opinion. While it wasn’t always clear which drafts were which. They were in various justices’ papers with different dates and different red lines on them. But he was ultimately able to identify six distinct drafts of the case.

These papers illustrate the way the justices grappled with how to establish the doctrine of supremacy and universality. The main question is this: could these doctrines be supported by past precedent or does it merely follow from these precedents? At first glance, answering that question might well be mistaken for Judicial Sophistry – But it is much more.

What makes this a very big deal is the Court said these doctrines are basic and well settled. That would imply this issue must have been decided 200 years ago. But what you see with each successive draft is that they move away from these various precedents. Now these precedents confer a rule that we can build upon, one that follows from it. But that’s a very different principle than saying these are well settled.

Among the leading cases are Article VI of The Constitution, which includes the supremacy clause and the oath’s clause, Marbury v Madison (1803), United States v Peters (1809). While Peters is not well known, or oft studied, it was nevertheless a fairly significant case. And a series of cases that have come to be known as the Booth Case – A series of cases beginning with In Re: Booth (1854) out of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Ableman v Booth (1859) from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Booth case dealt with whether a Wisconsin State Court could issue Habeas to a federal prisoner- that is when someone tried to obstruct the capture of a slave they were thrown in federal custody. Could a state court free a prisoner in Federal court? This was a really important case that no one talks about today. This was Justice Taney’s other major opinion nobody wants to talk about, but is a very big case all the same. The last Is Sterling v Constantin (1932) this is a great Texas case where the governor declares martial law and he basically tries to put limits on the production of oil in his own state. And there was a lawsuit filed in the state in which he stated he was not subject to any Court’s jurisdiction because we were under a state of martial law. It’s a fascinating case –

But none of them stand for the propositions which Cooper cited and the research Blackman did suggests that the judges realize this. With each successive draft, the court relied less and less on these precedents. They more or less said, “Well let’s use these rules and build upon them. These changes acknowledged that the court never before claimed such power of supremacy and universality. It was breaking new ground.

Now, the mere fact that they’re breaking new ground doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Very often, courts make new rulings and we can justify them. But these claims were novel, new, not supported, and have not really been used since. This is why these “principles” can safely be called myths. They existed to deal with this exigency, which was unquestionably awful.

But in hindsight, people have gained a little bit of clarity. And as has been mentioned before, ultimately these judgments had virtually no effect on the school districts that did an end-run around these rulings by transferring the schools from public to private charters. At once, this doctrine was laid bare. No court, no matter how high in stature, can force people to accept a judge’s interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s authority is, at best, merely persuasive.

The last part of Blackman’s article focuses on how Cooper has been developed in the last half-century. The court has not shied away from this principle of judicial supremacy. It’s provided in cases such as Powell v McCormack (1969), Baker v Carr (1962), United States v Nixon (1974), to name just a few. But in those cases, there was no meaningful resistance to the court’s interpretation. After the Supreme Court ruled on United States v Nixon, President Nixon turned over the documents and he resigned shortly thereafter.

It was only in slavery and segregation that you found such massive resistance to the Supreme Court’s opinion. Indeed after Cooper was decided people just disregarded it. Despite all best efforts, neither Josh Blackman, during his research into this case, nor me, during my research into his research could find a single example of the Court using Cooper as a precedent for judicial universality. Not even during the Massive Resistance.

So Justice Breyer, who really encapsulates this theory, can’t really peg down where this doctrine is in Cooper. This lends further credence to calling Cooper a myth. It’s not that it actually says this but I think it’s how people have understood it to be said. In fact, there have been some lower court decisions that have said the opinions issued by U.S. Courts of Appeals are binding on everyone. In other words, if the 9th circuit issues a ruling it binds the government everywhere. This was a Reinhardt opinion.  You have a similar decision in the southern district of New York. Those have not gone anywhere.

But at the bottom, the Supreme Court is still a court and follows the usual rules of a court. Its precedent is persuasive to everyone – state courts and federal courts alike. But its judgments are only binding on the named parties. Stating the principles of judicial supremacy and universality in the absence of antagonism is simple enough. When trying to put them to effect, however, they are exposed as mere myths.

Share
Categories
Commentary Election lawsuits Intelwars Politics Supreme Court Texas The 2020 Election the Supreme Court

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out.  The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election.  The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first.  But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.

And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.

So this is really happening.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all.

In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

And he is absolutely correct.  When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”

Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.

The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation

  • Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
  • Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
  • Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
  • Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

In addition, in his complaint Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently

Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.

As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”

Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.

And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”.

Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.

But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.

Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy?

Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”

In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections or alternatively they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves.

And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.

Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum.  Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.

So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.

But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter and Parler, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

Share
Categories
election fraud Intelwars Ken Paxton Sue battleground states Supreme Court Texas sues

Texas files election challenge in Supreme Court against four battleground states

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing officials in four battleground states of exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to make unconstitutional last-minute changes to mail-in voting rules.

Paxton, a vocal supporter of President Trump, argues that officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin “violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures” in order to allow for increased mail-in balloting, thereby violating the Constitution. Because of the states’ mail-in vote meddling, he alleges at present that electors for the states should not be allowed to cast their Electoral College votes.

“The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election,” reads a Tuesday press release announcing the lawsuit. “The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted.”

The lawsuit, which includes similar allegations made by President Trump and his allies, was filed on the “safe harbor deadline” for states to settle election disputes and lock in their presidential electors, but ahead of the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote. In the suit, Paxton is requesting that the Supreme Court delay the Electoral College vote and allow for investigations into election fraud to be completed.

“Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election,” Paxton stated in the press release. “We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

Paxton was able to file the suit with the Supreme Court because the high court has exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between states, the Hill noted. In the filing, the Texas attorney general also argued that the nation’s highest court is the only judicial body capable of handling such an important case dealing with the Electoral College.

If the court should fail to intervene before the Electoral College vote is cast, “a grave cloud will hang over not only the presidency but also the republic,” Paxton argued.

The filing was met with immediate criticism from some officials in the four battleground states.

“The motion filed by the Texas attorney general is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading,” blasted Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. “The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country.”

Katie Byrd, spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, argued that Paxton “is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong” about the state.

Share
Categories
Election 2020 Intelwars Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz says he’ll argue Pennsylvania election case if SCOTUS decides to hear it

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear a case filed by fellow Republicans challenging Pennsylvania’s election results, he will be the one to deliver the petitioners’ argument before the high court.

What are the details?

Last month, a group of individuals led by Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R) and GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell filed a lawsuit arguing that universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional in the state. According to USA Today, the petitioners seek to “invalidate more than 2.5 million mail-in ballots that Pennsylvanians used to vote in the Nov. 3 election.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously threw out the case, so Kelly and his co-petitioners filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sen. Cruz then promptly issued a statement urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Kelly’s and Parnell’s appeal, saying that the case “raises serious legal issues” and arguing that “hearing this case now — on an emergency expedited basis — would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”

Now, Cruz says he will personally argue the case if the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.

“Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I’ve publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA,” the senator tweeted Monday.

Repeating a statement he first delivered to Fox News, Cruz explained, “Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari. I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument.”

He added, “As I said last week, the bitter division and acrimony we see across the Nation needs resolution. I believe #SCOTUS has a responsibility to the American People to ensure, within its powers, that we are following the law and following the Constitution.”

Anything else?

Several state courts have seen election challenges filed in the wake of the general election. Dozens have been filed by attorneys representing President Donald Trump and his campaign, who allege that widespread voter fraud and irregularities are behind Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s projected win.

Neither President Trump nor his campaign are listed as petitioners in Kelly and Parnell’s case.

Over the weekend, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito moved up the deadline for the high court to respond to the plaintiffs from Wednesday to Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. ET.

Share
Categories
Alito Intelwars Pennsylvania election Pennsylvania election lawsuit Safe harbor Supreme Court

Justice Alito moves up deadline in Pennsylvania election fraud case, suggesting possible SCOTUS action

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has moved up the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to an election challenge filed by state Rep. Mike Kelly and other Republican state lawmakers, possibly signaling that the court may take up the case.

What are the details?

Alito had previously set the deadline for Dec. 9, one day after what is known as the “safe harbor date,” the federal cutoff date for states to resolve election issues and lock in the their electors for the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14.

But on Sunday, Alito moved up the deadline for Pennsylvania officials to respond to Tuesday by 9 a.m. ET. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the move is significant because it “would give the court a few hours Tuesday to act on Kelly’s request if it chooses to do so.”

The plaintiffs in the case are seeking to have the court toss all of the state’s mail-in ballots on the grounds that a state law passed in October 2019 that allows for no-excuse absentee voting is unconstitutional. The state constitution specifies that absentee votes can be cast for only a limited number of reasons.

Alito reportedly did not offer an explanation for the change, but nevertheless it is certainly a hopeful sign for efforts to challenge the state’s election results. The Inquirer noted that Alito’s original selection of the Dec. 9 deadline indicated to most legal observers that the court had no intention of acting on the case in a way that would alter the results.

Former Vice President Joe Biden currently leads incumbent President Donald Trump in the state by just over 80,000 votes. But should the courts rule that millions of mail-in ballots cast in the state be lost, it would effectively ensure a Pennsylvania victory for Trump as the election would be sent to the state’s Republican-controlled legislature for a vote.

What else?

Despite the move seeming to provide a glimmer of hope for the president and his allies, some experts are arguing that the deadline change is nothing more than a symbolic gesture out of respect for the Republican lawmakers.

“I would not read too much into this,” Richard L. Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, said in a blog post Sunday. “It shows more respect to the petitioners [Kelly], and does not make it look like the court is simply running out the clock on the petition. I still think the chances the court grants any relief on this particular petition are virtually zero.”

In a unanimous decision late last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, essentially arguing that it arrived far too late and only came after the lawmakers’ favored candidate lost.

Share
Categories
Church Churches Coronavirus restrictions Covid lockdowns Gavin Newsom Intelwars lockdowns Religion Supreme Court

Supreme Court delivers blow to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lockdown orders against churches

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on indoor religious services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court tossed out a decision from a Central District of California court that upheld Newsom’s constraints on houses of worship.

“The September 2 order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,” the Supreme Court stated, according to Fox News.

The justices, with no noted dissents, vacated the District Court ruling against the Pasadena-based Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, which has several campuses and more than 160 churches across California. The Harvest Rock Church initially filed a lawsuit against the state in July when restrictions were implemented following a surge in coronavirus cases. The restrictions banned indoor singing and chanting activities.

The Supreme Court referenced its recent 5-4 ruling against restrictions on prayer services in New York. The Nov. 25 ruling that said New York could not enforce limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in coronavirus hot spots, which upset Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The Democratic governor of New York then accused the Supreme Court justices of politicizing COVID-19.

California currently has a color-coded tier program that imposes certain restrictions in each county based on the number of COVID-19 cases. If the county has what the state considers “widespread” coronavirus cases, then “many non-essential indoor business operations are closed.” In lesser tiers of the system, “some indoor business operations are open with modifications.”

The church claims they are protected under the First Amendment to practice their religion, adding that the Democratic governor’s order is illegal because it restrains the size of religious gatherings, but other secular activities do not face the same restrictions.

“For the governor, COVID-19 restrictions are apparently optional and penalty free,” lawyers for the church argued. “But for Churches or anyone worshipping in their own home with someone who does not live there, COVID-19 restrictions are mandatory and enforced via criminal penalties.”

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver issued a statement, “The handwriting is now on the wall. The final days of Governor Gavin Newsom’s ‘color-coded edicts’ banning worship are numbered and coming to an end. It is past time to end the unconstitutional restrictions on places of worship.”

Share
Categories
campaign Intelwars Lawsuit Supreme Court trump Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump campaign election lawsuit — for now

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday declined to take up one of the lawsuits filed in the state by the Trump campaign earlier in the week, determining in a 4-3 decision that the petition seeking to toss out more than 220,000 absentee ballots should be heard by a lower court.

What are the details?

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their re-election campaign sued Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and several election officials in the state, presenting what the campaign called “clear evidence of unlawfulness” that is says “affected no less than approximately 221,000 ballots out of over the three three million ballots cast.”

But the majority of the state’s highest court agreed that under Wisconsin law, the case should first be seen by a circuit court.

The Washington Post reported that “one conservative member of the panel, Brian Hagedorn, joined the court’s three more liberal members in declining to take the case,” writing “that he had determined the court should decline to take the case so the Trump campaign could ‘promptly exercise’ its right to seek action in a lower court.”

Courthouse News noted that “the other three members of the court’s conservative majority dissented.”

The outlet reported:

Grassl Bradley, an appointee of Republican former Governor Scott Walker, wrote that “the majority takes a pass on resolving the important questions presented by the petitioners in this case, thereby undermining the public’s confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin’s electoral processes not only during this election, but in every future election.”

In reaction to the court’s narrow decision, Trump campaign attorney James Troupis said in a statement, “We welcome the direction of the Supreme Court to file in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as we pursue making certain that only legal votes count in Wisconsin — and we will immediately do so.”

He added, “It was clear from their writings that the court recognizes the seriousness of these issues, and we look forward to taking the next step. We fully expect to be back in front of the Supreme Court very soon.”

Anything else?

The Trump/Pence campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits nationwide, alleging widespread voting fraud and irregularities in several states in challenging Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as the projected winner. The Hill noted that their litigation attempts “have largely proved unsuccessful.”

On Wednesday, the campaign filed another lawsuit in Wisconsin (in district court) against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the mayors of the state’s five largest cities: Milwaukee, Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay and Racine.

The official Wisconsin tally indicates Biden won the state by more than 20,000 votes.

Share
Categories
ballots Department of Justice Donald Trump election fraud Evidence FBI Headline News Intelwars LIES propaganda selection Supreme Court testifies trucker United States WHISTLEBLOWER

Election Fraud: Whistleblower Testifies 300K Ballots VANISHED From His Truck

A trucker turned whistleblower has come forward to testify about the election fraud. He testified that almost 300,000 ballots were inside his trailer that vanished from a Pennsylvania lot, even as the United States attorney general said the Department of Justice had seen no evidence of significant fraud so far.

The mainstream media also continues to propagate the idea that Joe Biden has won the election even though cases are still being heard and ballots are still being sorted out amongst the latest case of election fraud in U.S. history.  Social media giants are also continuing to label tweets exposing this fraud as “fake” or “disputed.”

Americans Are CONSTANTLY BOMBARDED With Propaganda

Amistad Project Director Phill Kline says his group has collected sworn expert testimony alleging that“over 300,000 ballots are at issue in Arizona, 548,000 in Michigan, 204,000 in Georgia, and over 121,000 in Pennsylvania.” The FBI has requested access to their data analysis, Kline noted previously.

FBI Allegedly Requesting Data On “Potentially Fraudulent Ballots”

Kline’s claims have received remarkably little media attention, unlike the statement of US Attorney General Bill Barr to AP earlier on Tuesday that the Department of Justice has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” according to a report by RT.

Instead of investigating the claims made by Donald Trump and his campaign, the mainstream media and social media continue to label the ongoing election fraud as “baseless.”  If this swings the other way, which is still likely, the mainstream media will lose whatever credibility is remaining.

Back in September, we noticed that Trump was already prepared to take the election fraud all the way to the Supreme Court.

More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election

Trump Vows To Take Election Decision To The Supreme Court

The post Election Fraud: Whistleblower Testifies 300K Ballots VANISHED From His Truck first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
election Intelwars Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ted Cruz trump

Ted Cruz urges US Supreme Court to take up Pennsylvania election challenge

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued a statement Tuesday urging the United States Supreme Court to hear an emergency appeal challenging the election results in the state of Pennsylvania, which was filed by fellow Republicans.

What are the details?

Last month, Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R) and GOP congressional candidate Sean Parnell filed a lawsuit in their home state that declared “universal mail-in voting unconstitutional in the state,” according to KDKA-TV, who reported that the suit, if successful, would have resulted in throwing out “the votes of the majority of Pennsylvanians who voted by mail in the Nov. 3 election.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously threw out the order, so Kelly and Parnell filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. high court. Sen. Cruz says case has merit.

“This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis,” the senator wrote, noting that “the Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances,” and that “late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.”

Cruz, a litigator who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, also pointed out that “just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote — correctly, I believe — concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.'”

He argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court put the plaintiffs “in a Catch-22” by telling them, in short, that “before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long.”

Cruz went on to acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court would typically not take up election cases dealing with state law, but that “these are not ordinary times.”

The Republican from Texas concluded:

As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that “the election was rigged.” That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Court Cases CURRENT EVENTS First Amendment Incorporation Doctrine Intelwars New York Supreme Court

Federalism Gets the Bird for Thanksgiving

In what many consider a Thanksgiving gift for religious liberty, the United States Supreme Court struck down occupancy limits for church gatherings in New York. The restrictions were implemented by Governor Andrew Cuomo in an attempt to thwart the spread of the coronavirus.

The Justices held that restrictions on the size of congregations violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision was a 5-4 split. Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority, while John Roberts joined Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in the dissent.

Governor Cuomo issued an executive order in October initiating a three-color risk system as part of his draconian response to the virus. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Agudath Israel of America filed complaints as the order severely restricted the size of congregations for religious worship. No more than 10 people are allowed to gather in “red” zones, 25 in “orange” zones; the restrictions are harsher for religious gatherings than for secular purposes, raising concerns of “First Amendment ‘Rights’” violations.

Conservatives are hailing this decision as a victory for religious liberty due to the purposeful aim taken at religious gatherings. But should they be?

The answer is the same as it was last year when the High Court held that a cross could remain on public land. The Court gets it wrong even while getting it right.

In both cases, there was no federal government action at issue. In the present case, the restrictions came from the State of New York but the Constitutional issue claimed is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The next inquiries which MUST be made by Constitutional Conservatives are, “is this what the Founders intended?” and “is this something to which the States consented?”

The answer to both is an unequivocal “NO!”

As James Madison explained in Federalist #45:
 

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite…The powers reserved to the several states will…concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

Throughout the Philadelphia Convention, Madison pushed for a federal “negative” (veto power) over state laws. This idea was rejected on each attempt. When a number of states insisted on adding a Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification, he argued against it saying, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, among others, that it would be redundant since the “general” government had only the powers specifically enumerated.

The legislative powers of Congress are set forth in Article I, with the enumerated powers listed therein under Section 8. The Tenth Amendment asserts the following:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Accordingly, whether these restrictions are to be upheld is a matter to be resolved within the state of New York.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states, in relevant part, the following:

“The Conventions of a number of the States…expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

When he introduced the proposal for a Bill of Rights to Congress, Madison wanted some of the provisions to be made applicable against the states. He argued that was where liberty would be most likely threatened. Again, he was defeated.

The Bill of Rights was never understood to be applicable against the states. There is absolutely no historical evidence of the Bill of Rights being made enforceable against the states. Even nationalist John Marshall, in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, was forced to admit this when he said that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

In the New York case, the Court  acknowledged that the goal of fighting the spread of the virus is a compelling state interest, but that the Governor’s decree was more restrictive to places of worship than other places. Justice Gorsuch wrote, “It is time — past time — to make plain that while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that re-open liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”

The Court also held that “less restrictive measures could be enforced on the religious services to stop virus transmission, such as limiting services based on available capacity and not a hard cap.”

If it appears that the Supreme Court is issuing a negative on the affairs of the State of New York in contravention to the Constitution as ratified by the states, that is because it is. Even if you agree with the results, the bigger issue is the preservation of decentralized power — the purpose of the Constitution.

Recall the Tenth Amendment quoted above as well as the original intention of the Bill of Rights. How did the Free Exercise clause and other restrictions upon the General Government become enforceable against the States? As I explained here, this came about from the deliberate misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the malfeasance of the legal education industry.

What Congress was prohibited from doing at Philadelphia and the Ratification Conventions (the latter being our source for understanding what was agreed, or consented to), the Federal Judiciary now does on a regular basis – effectively veto (overturn) state legislation and state court holdings it finds disagreeable. But this was not always the case, as mentioned above.

It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York 268 U. S. 652 that the Supreme Court magically “found” the authority to apply the Bill of Rights against the states supposedly hidden away in the 14th Amendment.  This interpretation is both problematic and not supported by history. The 39th Congress, which proposed the amendment, did not intend to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights against the states, and no such premise had been adhered to in the preceding years.

By 1925, however, the Progressive Era was in full swing and the Supreme Court was well on its way to imposing a complete rewrite of the Constitution upon the states and the American people, thus diminishing the separation of powers between the states and the general government. 

Clearly, the outcome of this case is one to be celebrated, but not from a Constitutional perspective. Delegating such authority to nine politically-connected lawyers is an affront to Republicanism and representative government, principles intended to be safeguarded by the Tenth Amendment, the cornerstone of the Constitution, according to Thomas Jefferson.

Had the Court ruled the other way, religious freedom, as well as freedoms too numerous to list would be subject to judicial approval across the entire “nation,” a principle the Framers would have deemed repugnant.

As I have previously stated, the War for American Independence was fought to secure the natural right to be governed by a system to which the people have consented. Thanks to years of indoctrination, the people and the states continue to defer to a system in which our fundamental, God-given, natural rights (not “Constitutional rights”) are determined, qualified, and restricted by a national government which no longer cares about the consent of the governed. We have come full circle, back to a system of Parliamentary Sovereignty; we have surrendered our revolutionary legacy.

Share
Categories
BILL OF RIGHTS contested election Deep State fair elections Headline News Intelwars James Comey John Brennan John Negroponte Lawsuits secure elections Supreme Court technocracy terror campaigns Voting War

Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care

This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute.

There’s at least one good reason to support Donald Trump’s ongoing lawsuits challenging the election results in several states: the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t want you to.

As Newsweek reported last week, “A group of more than 100 national security experts” from Republican administrations have condemned the president’s challenges to some states’ vote-counting process. These “experts” are claiming these legal efforts “undermine democracy” and “risk long-term damage” to the nation’s institutions. The signatories include people like Michael Hayden, John Negroponte, and Tom Ridge. These are the usual sort of “deep state” technocrats—for example, James Comey and John Brennan—who chime in to defend the status quo in the United States and insist it is an outrage that anyone (i.e., Donald Trump) departs from the usual way of doing things.

This alleged devotion to “democracy” and “the nation’s institutions” rings a bit odd coming from people like Negroponte and Hayden. Hayden, after all, has supported a litany of spying programs, torture, and the wholesale destruction of the human rights of both Americans and countless foreigners. Negroponte was the first director of national intelligence and has long supported spying on American citizens without a warrant. He oversaw the US-funded terror campaigns against Hondurans during the Reagan administration. Negroponte also enthusiastically supported the US’s 2003 war in Iraq which failed to achieve any of the objectives sold to the Americans as the reasons the war was a necessity.

Through scandals like the Abu-Graib debacle, unconstitutional wiretapping, torture, and ceaseless paranoid calls for an ever larger national-security state, the American foreign policy establishment has done more to undermine American democracy and institutions than Trump could ever hope for.

Yet,  these people are now speaking as if they are moral authorities on preserving the rights of Americans.

Given their clear disregard for basic human rights in recent decades, however, one suspects it is more likely that what really motivates the signatories’ denunciation of Trump’s election lawsuits is a desire to return to “business as usual.” This, after all, would make it easier for the regime to get back to dismantling the Bill of Rights, initiating new wars, and generally doing what it wants.

This becomes harder to do if millions of Americans begin to suspect that the regime isn’t as legitimate as has been long claimed, and that maybe the game is rigged against those who fail to be sufficiently friendly toward the permanent government in Washington and the so-called deep state.

But lest anyone think that investigating the integrity of American elections is a worthwhile endeavor, these national security bureaucrats resort to the usual, tired claim:

“By encouraging President Trump’s delaying tactics or remaining silent, Republican leaders put … national security at risk.”

The message is this: Dear Trump supporters, if you demand thorough legal proceedings and a careful look at this election’s outcome, then you support “America’s enemies.” We’ve heard a similar sentiment from these people before when the Bush Administration declared “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” The message now is: “either you’re with us, or you’re with the Chinese totalitarians.”

It’s the usual sort of ruse that’s been used by the US foreign policy establishment for decades, and this is only the latest illustration. This same impulse is why the Conservative movement’s longtime leader William F. Buckley called for “a totalitarian bureaucracy” in the United States so long as it served the interests of the American national security state.

What’s the Harm in Contesting the Election?

More reasonable people however, should see the value and necessity of a slow, thorough, and public legal examination of the election.

Regardless of how one feels about Donald Trump, anyone who values fair play, honesty, and the votes of legal voters should want thorough audits and investigations. The question: “how much was this election affected by fraud?” warrants serious consideration and serious investigation into how the election was conducted. After all, whenever political power is at stake, there is no reason whatsoever to assume honesty and integrity are guiding the actions of all involved.

Fraud occurs with every election, of course. Anyone who claims any election contains no fraud lives in a fantasy land, or is lying. Voter fraud exists anywhere that votes are cast. Anecdotes of fraud in this election are plentiful, from backdated ballots in Pennsylvania, to  “coaching” voters in Detroit. The question is whether or not this sort of thing is widespread enough to change the outcome. In a number of lawsuits, the Trump campaign has suggested that it has been widespread.

And there’s no harm in allowing the legal process to proceed. After all, in legal and constitutional terms, the US election process is still very much on schedule.

Contrary to what various reporters seem to think, it is not the case that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “were declared the election’s winners more than two weeks ago, after Fox News, the Associated Press and other television networks called” it. The outcomes of presidential elections aren’t declared by infotainment performers working at Fox News.

Rather, federal statutes and constitutional provisions stipulate that the Electoral College will meet in December, and the Congress will declare a winner shortly thereafter. This process is in no danger of being derailed.

It’s too bad that people like Michael Hayden don’t respect this constitutional process, but that’s just par for the course coming from someone who has been director of the CIA.

For those who actually care about some measure of accountability and transparency from government institutions in charge of running elections, there should be no problem with any presidential candidate demanding a wide variety of legal challenges. This in itself won’t solve the problem of election fraud, and it won’t make the regime respect anyone’s human rights. This wouldn’t make government by majority-rule any less problematic. But it would be helpful to gather more information on how much of a gulf lies between the perception of “free and fair elections” and the reality. And it is the very least that should be done in the wake of an election where the outcome is close, messy, and conducted by politicians who are very unlikely to have the average Americans’ interests at heart.

The post Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share