.
According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a âjudicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.â
So, what is meant by âstandingâ?
When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what âstandingâ is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have âoriginal jurisdictionâ over âControversies between two or more Statesâ.
Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.
In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendmentâs due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a âdepravation of rights under color of lawâ which is an actionable offense and injury.
Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.
In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.
Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the ârule of lawâ is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the ârule of lawâ, our Country is built upon âthe rule of lawâ and âconsent of the governedâ, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.
Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiffâs accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitutionâs Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?
To this degree, that if the Plaintiffâs accusations are correct and provable (which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law) the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.
For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a âjudicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.â
So, what is meant by âstandingâ?
When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what âstandingâ is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have âoriginal jurisdictionâ over âControversies between two or more Statesâ.
Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.
In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendmentâs due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a âdepravation of rights under color of lawâ which is an actionable offense and injury.
Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.
In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.
Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the ârule of lawâ is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the ârule of lawâ, our Country is built upon âthe rule of lawâ and âconsent of the governedâ, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.
Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiffâs accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitutionâs Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?
To this degree, that if the Plaintiffâs accusations are correct and provable (which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law) the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.
For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
