Right before midnight on Monday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit concerning the 2020 Presidential Election that will have far more significance than any of the others currently working their way through the courts.
Texas filed a suit against four states where rogue government officials did things they are not allowed to do. They violated the US Constitution during the presidential election. The violations we’re talking about happened regardless of the massive amount of election fraud that has been discovered since November 3.
The four states being sued for Constitutional violations are Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I am from Pennsylvania, and I have been wondering when someone would file based on the arguments I’m about to present.
Texas isn’t playing around. They filed their case directly to the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution has a small number of categories of cases where the Supreme Court has what’s called “Original Jurisdiction.” One of the categories involved “Controversies between two or more states,” and the suit Texas has filed is precisely that.
In the past, the High Court has said that it may decline to hear cases like this, at the Court’s own discretion. But I believe they have to hear this case because it presents a direct question of constitutional law that will decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, and if our country goes on to become a banana republic where the American people no longer trust future elections.
Some may argue that Texas doesn’t have “standing,” which is a question of whether or not the party bringing the suit has the right to do so. For example, if you witness a car accident that you were not a part of, you can’t file a lawsuit over the incident, because you were not directly involved. Well, I believe the state of Texas does have standing because the four states that violated the US Constitution could determine how Texas exists over the next 4 years.
Texas’ suit is crystal clear. The four states cited violated the US Constitution in two major ways.
The first violation was against what is known as the Electors Clause. Article II, Section 3 says:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” [Emphasis added]
This means that the Electors are determined by the state legislature and not officials from the Executive branch or the Judicial branch of the state. In the four states being sued both branches changed election laws without going through the state legislature. This is such a clear cut case of a Constitutional violation that it shouldn’t even be questioned. They broke the law.
When my state of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court changed election law by adding 3 days to the deadline for when ballots may be received, they violated the US Constitution’s Article II, Section 3. The legislature created a mail-in voting law called Act 77, which gave a deadline of 8 PM on Election Day that no ballots may be received after that time. The PA Supreme Court extended the deadline by three days and therefore violated Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution or the Electors Clause. Also, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar extended the deadline for proof of identity for people who voted by provisional ballots by 3 days, when she did not have the legal authority to do so. She also violated the Electors Clause of the US Constitution. They broke the law.
Likewise, in the state of Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger responded to a lawsuit by agreeing to a special consent decree with the Democratic Party of Georgia, via negotiations with the radical progressive lunatic Stacey Abrams, by modifying state law on signature verification requirement. In doing so, Raffensperger violated the Electors Clause. He broke the law.
The second Constitutional violation involves a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because all four states changed the law when they changed the way the state would receive and treat ballots. In the 2000 landmark case Bush v,. Gore, the US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause when one Florida county handled ballots one day, while another Florida county handled ballots in a different way. The people voting had the Constitutional right to have their ballots handled equally, or the same exact way, in every county in the state.
Well, we have witnessed the same pattern in all four states that are listed in the Texas lawsuit.
When Wayne County, Michigan election officials neglected to enforce the requirements of Michigan law and blocked poll observers from having access to vote counting areas, while other counties in the state actually followed the law, those counties, and therefore the state of Michigan, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Despite heavy-handed lies by mainstream news media personalities and phony fact-checkers who continually report that there is no evidence of voter fraud, America witnessed videos of Michigan vote count observers being removed from the vote-counting areas, and don’t forget the infamous incident where Democrats began placing whiteboards up on the windows so that the observers who were thrown out of the vote-counting center couldn’t see in. They broke the law.
And in Wisconsin, when the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission Administrator failed to enforce the requirements in Wisconsin law by directing election workers to fill in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were marked as invalid in other parts of the state, that resulted in the unequal treatment of ballots in the whole state, or a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. They broke the law.
Okay, so what does all of this mean? It means that the Texas lawsuit is based squarely on the question of law and is not reliant on any disputed facts that either side could argue. The law is the law, and it is indisputable that the law was violated in all four states listed in the suit. This means that voter fraud doesn’t have to be proven, or even argued at this point, because what the four states did violated the US Constitution.
The suit that Texas filed is seeking the High Court to give back the power to appoint the Electors to the state legislatures. If the states in the suit try to argue that result, the Supreme Court has a precedent in McPherson v. Blacker from 1892, which ruled:
“Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.” [Emphasis added]