Posted on 12/13/2020 7:53:55 AM PST by Starman417
Conservative judicial reticence hurt Texas in its long reach for standing but it will help President Trump if he uses the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government to order federal takeover of the January 5th runoff elections in Georgia.
Texas has teed it up perfectly. When President Trump brings in the Army to conduct model open and honest elections to select the next two U.S. senators from Georgia he’s going to need a political army behind him and that is what Texas and the 18 states who joined Texas v. Pennsylvania give him.
The left will denounce us as tyrannical and Georgia will immediately sue over the election interference: “No fair forcing us to have honest elections!” But the Supremes should be no more interested in getting involved than they were in the Texas case.
Finding the correct constitutional authority
Texas was unable to overcome the fact that the Constitution gives it to the states to set their own election rules. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” ruled the Court.
Texas is right that the fraud-enabling states didn’t establish their fraud-enabling election rules the way the Constitution specifies: via legislation, but it is the legislatures of those states that were wronged by being unconstitutionally bypassed and they aren’t suing.
Texas is injured but what hurts Texas is not how PA, GA, WI and MI put fraud-enabling rules in place. It is the fact that they did put fraud-enabling rules in place, and nothing in the parts of the Constitution that Texas sued under says that these other states can’t set up phony elections, no matter how much it hurts the honest states.
Stopping phony elections was left by the founders to a different part of the Constitution: the Article IV guarantee to the states that each of them “shall have a republican form of government.”
Republicanism means “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them” (Alexander Hamilton, cited in my previous discussion of the guarantee clause).
Since phony elections usurp the people’s choice they are a definitively unrepublican form, meaning states can’t have phony elections, and if they do The United States is supposed to go in and change their form of government.
The president can do this on his own authority. He has a constitutional duty to do it, and he does not have to wait for any court okay. He just can’t wait too long to step up to the tee or the opportunity will be missed.
The obvious first guarantee clause action: not letting Georgia use its rigged electoral system to steal not just the presidency but also the Senate. This one should not even be controversial.
Federal takeover of the Georgia run-offs is simple because it doesn’t require invalidating any already-conducted election. That is a big hurdle in itself and having a guarantee clause action that can be taken without having to clear that hurdle offers a clean entry for establishing the presidency’s never before used power to enforce the republican guarantee.
The recent general election provides plenty of evidence of Georgia’s election-stealing unrepublican form. First are Georgia’s huge self-created vulnerabilities to election fraud: Dominion election machinery custom created for communist dictator Hugo Chavez for the express purpose of stealing elections; multiple ballot applications helicopter-dropped to every address in the state with next to no verification required for voting these easy-to-harvest out-of-custody ballots, etcetera. There is also massive evidence of executed election fraud: observers kicked out so that large dumps of nearly all Biden votes could be mass processed with no verification, to mention one.
Only after Georgia sues will the courts come in and take a look at the steps the president is taking and his justification for them. The justifications are super strong. Action is warranted, so the imposed remedy just needs to be thoroughly republican: a model of open and honest elections.
Judicial reticence should do the rest
This time reticence should be on the side of letting the president do what he thinks needs to be done. That is because the Court’s established precedent on the republican guarantee is to say that the questions it raises are properly left to the political branches of government to decide.
Georgia would have to make a strong case to overcome that, convincing the Court that it is being hit with great harms that the Constitution does not allow. What, for having to endure honest elections?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Agree - thanks
It’s clear to everyone that democrats cheated to win the election, and if they succeed they will not govern, they will rule. It’s ironic that the judicial system will now determine whether or not to stick a knife into the heart of this country.
Wow, that’s real genius detective work. Did you ever consider that maybe I also signed up with a new screen name (have different email, forgot password), hence my new date and have no posting history before today? Hello? Duh?
Thinking is always, always a good idea before attempting to pontificate to others. It saves later being embarrassed.
LOL
No one’s embarrassed except you. You got caught.
And what exactly was I caught at?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.