See: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit
Former Judge Kevin S. Burke
Retired Judge Burke, in his desire to condone the undermining of our federal elections in which a number of States engaged in corrupted election practices, quotes Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon as succinctly saying, “The relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that states are sovereigns, free to govern themselves. The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners.”
Of course, both Burke and Gov. Gordon suspiciously ignore that our federal Constitution does indeed provide a number of agreed upon orders with respect to federal elections. Aside from the order contained in the “Elector’s clause” of our Constitution, that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …” etc., see e.g.:
Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides a penalty for an abridgement of the right to vote, making an abridgement federally protected.
By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
By the 24th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
And so, both Burke and Gov. Gordon’s assertion, that “The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners”, is a gross misrepresentation of our nation’s rule of law.
So, what actually constitutes an abridgement of the right to vote, with respect to a federal election? That is the fundamental question to be answered ___ a question which our Supreme Court refused to address when failing to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT
If a State’s employees who count federal election results are free to count illegal ballots ___ ballots which do not meet the State’s adopted voting requirements and restrictions ___ would that constitute an “abridgement” of the federally protected right to vote? The answer to this question is an obvious resounding ‘Yes”, as each illegal ballot counted in a state would in effect cancel out other Citizen’s legally casts ballots in that State, and thus be an infringement.
But there is a more important observation concerning the allowance by a state to engage in illegal and corrupted voting practices with respect to federal elections, as distinguished from elections which a local. Allowing Illegal voting practices and corruption with regard to federal elections in one state, or a number of states, creates a cognizable injury and threat to the remaining states and to our very democratic system of government!
Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States, her democratic system of government, and her citizens.
As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court ___ when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).
Former Justice Burke, as witnessed by his absurd commentary, is an indication of how shallow minded thinking is eroding the rule of law and the miracle created by our Founding Fathers.
JWK
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Former Judge Kevin S. Burke
Retired Judge Burke, in his desire to condone the undermining of our federal elections in which a number of States engaged in corrupted election practices, quotes Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon as succinctly saying, “The relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that states are sovereigns, free to govern themselves. The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners.”
Of course, both Burke and Gov. Gordon suspiciously ignore that our federal Constitution does indeed provide a number of agreed upon orders with respect to federal elections. Aside from the order contained in the “Elector’s clause” of our Constitution, that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …” etc., see e.g.:
Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides a penalty for an abridgement of the right to vote, making an abridgement federally protected.
By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
By the 24th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
And so, both Burke and Gov. Gordon’s assertion, that “The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners”, is a gross misrepresentation of our nation’s rule of law.
So, what actually constitutes an abridgement of the right to vote, with respect to a federal election? That is the fundamental question to be answered ___ a question which our Supreme Court refused to address when failing to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT
If a State’s employees who count federal election results are free to count illegal ballots ___ ballots which do not meet the State’s adopted voting requirements and restrictions ___ would that constitute an “abridgement” of the federally protected right to vote? The answer to this question is an obvious resounding ‘Yes”, as each illegal ballot counted in a state would in effect cancel out other Citizen’s legally casts ballots in that State, and thus be an infringement.
But there is a more important observation concerning the allowance by a state to engage in illegal and corrupted voting practices with respect to federal elections, as distinguished from elections which a local. Allowing Illegal voting practices and corruption with regard to federal elections in one state, or a number of states, creates a cognizable injury and threat to the remaining states and to our very democratic system of government!
Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States, her democratic system of government, and her citizens.
As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court ___ when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).
Former Justice Burke, as witnessed by his absurd commentary, is an indication of how shallow minded thinking is eroding the rule of law and the miracle created by our Founding Fathers.
JWK
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
