THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 22, 2021 at 10:15 am
Paul Plante says:
And before we go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., let us focus on these words from what was actually filed with the Supreme Court by the State of Texas, to wit:
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads.
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.
We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President — any President — is legitimate.
If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder.
end quotes
Now, that has not a ******* thing to do with Donald Trump, period!
He is just a bit player in this drama, which takes us back to NPR and “Not Much Considered And That Only Superficially,” where we have from them as follows, to wit:
CORNISH: Did any of the justices dissent?
TOTENBERG: Well, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that for procedural reasons, they thought that Texas should be able to at least file its suit in the Supreme Court.
But beyond that, they wouldn’t have given Texas anything else that it wanted.
CORNISH: Nina, if this was such a slam dunk that it took the Supreme Court about a day to decide to do nothing, why did Texas file the suit?
And why did 17 Republican attorneys general file a supporting brief?
And I guess I should also follow with, why did more than half the Republican members of Congress do the same thing?
end quotes
And talk about a comprehension deficit, here we are looking at the real thing – a GENUINE MADE-IN-AMERICA ******* IDIOT!
Obviously, this AUDIE CORNISH, HOST, is brain-dead if she cannot read those opening words from the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT that either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives, and understand the implications to those of us who are LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Trump supporters, not boys who are proud of being boys, although in reality, they are PROPAGANDISTS, so this is the stupid **** we can expect from them, which takes us back to the Transcript as follows:
TOTENBERG: Well, let’s start with Attorney General Paxton, Ken Paxton of Texas.
There’s been a lot of speculation because he’s under indictment for securities fraud, is being investigated by the FBI on other charges that perhaps he is looking for a pardon because interestingly, the solicitor general of Texas who signs all of Texas’s briefs to the Supreme Court, usually – the solicitor general of the state did not sign this brief.
As to the other attorneys general, we know from a variety of reports that President Trump talked to several of them because they were all meeting in Washington, trying to get them to support this brief.
In addition to that, you know, attorneys general frequently are going to run for another office.
They may want to be governor someday.
So this was good politics.
And that’s probably the same reason that the majority of the Republican members of the House of Representatives did the same thing.
end quotes
And here, all I can do is to shake my head at just how ******* stupid people in this country have to be to believe that ****!
IT’S ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION, NINA, YOU IDIOT, NOT KEN PAXTON!
Getting back to the propaganda:
CORNISH: What happens next?
TOTENBERG: Well, the Constitution tells us what happens next.
The members of – the delegates of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state.
end quotes
“Delegates” of the Electoral College?
THEY ARE CALLED “ELECTORS,” NINA!
In FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton spoke of them thusly:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
end quotes
Getting back to the stupid propaganda spew from Mark Zuckerburg’s NPR, it goes on as follows:
TOTENBERG: And one would have to note that the – in these four states, not only was there a recount in every one of these states, there were audits.
There were dozens of challenges in court, none of which came to fruition in any way and that the attorney general of the United States, Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, said there was no evidence of any kind of massive fraud.
So they will meet – all of them – on Monday.
And they will cast their votes, and Joe Biden will become the president-elect formally of the United States.
And he will then be sworn into office on January 20.
Now, of course, this is Trump land.
We – you never know what could happen next.
So I’m not going to say never.
CORNISH: That’s OK.
TOTENBERG: Never say never when it comes to Trump.
CORNISH: Yes.
That’s NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
end quotes
Yes, people, it was!
And this is not Trump-Land – it’s the United States of America!
Or used to be, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-337544
TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 22, 2021 at 6:49 pm
Paul Plante says:
And before we go back for a more detailed look at FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE, that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate tasked with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let us first go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: What happens next?
TOTENBERG: Well, the Constitution tells us what happens next.
The members of – the delegates of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state.
end quotes
Applying some logic here that will not be applied by National Propaganda Radio (NPR) which is peddling a narrative, IF as Nina Totenberg tells Audie Cornish on 11 December 2020, the “delegates” of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state, then it has to logically follow that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate in 2020 WAS NOT made by men or women most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station who would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, because there were no such complicated investigations, period – to the contrary, the so-called “delegates” to the electoral college in 2020 were simply mindless drones there to act as rubber stamps.
Whatever the people want, they should get, and it is no business of the delegates to the electoral college to challenge that or to substitute their judgment for that of the howling mob, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
end quotes
Except as was proven conclusively in 2020, where Joe Biden was claiming to be the president on 7 November 2020, thirty-four (34) days before the 11 December 2020 NPR article, that “effectual security” is now non-existent, which takes us back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington; Dareh Gregorian, a politics reporter for NBC News, and Dartunorro Clark, also a politics reporter for NBC News, on Dec. 14, 2020, to wit:
Biden called the election, which Trump and his supporters have tried to overturn with scores of failed legal challenges, “honest, free and fair.”
And he called attacks on the election and election officials “simply unconscionable” and Trump’s attempts to overturn the election an “abuse of power.”
“In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them,” he said.
“The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.”
“And we now know that nothing, not even a pandemic — or an abuse of power — can extinguish that flame.
“In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” Biden added.
“We the people voted.”
“Faith in our institutions held.”
“The integrity of our elections remains intact.”
“And so, now it is time to turn the page.”
“To unite.”
“To heal.”
All 538 electors met Monday in their respective states to cast their votes for president based on the election results that were recently certified by all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Biden, however, was deemed president-elect on Nov. 7, four days after the election, once he surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
end quotes
So, people, regardless of anything to the contrary in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, on 7 Nov. 2020, Joe Biden was deemed the president-elect, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
end quotes
In this case, the heats and ferments of the people were communicated to these so-called “delegates” of the electoral college, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York who has told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that we have to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, and by extension, the Marxist ideology BLACK LIVES MATTER is based on, and these so-called “delegates” as stated above, were merely rubber stamps, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68 for this, to wit:.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
end quotes
And nice try, Al, but as we can clearly see from what happened in 2020, every practicable obstacle you saw as being opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption was easily swept aside by the Democrats so that now, all we do have is cabal, intrigue and corruption galore.
Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 68:
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
end quotes
And given the reality of who these “delegates” really are, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan, all of whom have been trusted beforehand to prostitute their votes or they would not have been selected by the Democrats in the first place, clearly the people of America DID NOT select these “delegates,” only the Democrats did.
So the will of the American people really has been thwarted, as we see by going back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
end quotes
Free from any sinister bias?
Bill Clinton?
Hillary Clinton who was quoted in The Daily Caller article “Hillary Tells Black Church White People Must End ‘Systemic Racism’” by Alex Pfeiffer, White House Correspondent, on April 20, 2016 as saying it is the “responsibility of white people” to end systemic racism and “(W)e have to be honest about systemic racism and particularly the responsibility of white people, not just people in public life but all of us,” and “(W)e all have implicit biases, they are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia, and what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them,” adding, “I don’t have the answers, I’m not a behavioral psychologist or anything, but I think that needs to be done in every community kind of setting we can find that is open to doing it?”
Andy Cuomo?
Kathy Sheehan?
Yeah, right, Al, because that is about as BULL**** as BULL**** can possibly get, which again takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And as to the business of corruption, time as well as means are what the Democrats have had plenty of going back to at least the 1850’s, so that all of the safeguards against cabal, intrigue, and especially corruption in the selection of an American president promised to the American people by Al Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68 are nothing more than a fence made out of moonbeams and fairy dust.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-337638
Paul Plante says:
And before we go back for a more detailed look at FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE, that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate tasked with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let us first go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: What happens next?
TOTENBERG: Well, the Constitution tells us what happens next.
The members of – the delegates of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state.
end quotes
Applying some logic here that will not be applied by National Propaganda Radio (NPR) which is peddling a narrative, IF as Nina Totenberg tells Audie Cornish on 11 December 2020, the “delegates” of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state, then it has to logically follow that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate in 2020 WAS NOT made by men or women most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station who would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, because there were no such complicated investigations, period – to the contrary, the so-called “delegates” to the electoral college in 2020 were simply mindless drones there to act as rubber stamps.
Whatever the people want, they should get, and it is no business of the delegates to the electoral college to challenge that or to substitute their judgment for that of the howling mob, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
end quotes
Except as was proven conclusively in 2020, where Joe Biden was claiming to be the president on 7 November 2020, thirty-four (34) days before the 11 December 2020 NPR article, that “effectual security” is now non-existent, which takes us back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington; Dareh Gregorian, a politics reporter for NBC News, and Dartunorro Clark, also a politics reporter for NBC News, on Dec. 14, 2020, to wit:
Biden called the election, which Trump and his supporters have tried to overturn with scores of failed legal challenges, “honest, free and fair.”
And he called attacks on the election and election officials “simply unconscionable” and Trump’s attempts to overturn the election an “abuse of power.”
“In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them,” he said.
“The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.”
“And we now know that nothing, not even a pandemic — or an abuse of power — can extinguish that flame.
“In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” Biden added.
“We the people voted.”
“Faith in our institutions held.”
“The integrity of our elections remains intact.”
“And so, now it is time to turn the page.”
“To unite.”
“To heal.”
All 538 electors met Monday in their respective states to cast their votes for president based on the election results that were recently certified by all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Biden, however, was deemed president-elect on Nov. 7, four days after the election, once he surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
end quotes
So, people, regardless of anything to the contrary in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, on 7 Nov. 2020, Joe Biden was deemed the president-elect, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
end quotes
In this case, the heats and ferments of the people were communicated to these so-called “delegates” of the electoral college, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York who has told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that we have to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, and by extension, the Marxist ideology BLACK LIVES MATTER is based on, and these so-called “delegates” as stated above, were merely rubber stamps, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68 for this, to wit:.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
end quotes
And nice try, Al, but as we can clearly see from what happened in 2020, every practicable obstacle you saw as being opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption was easily swept aside by the Democrats so that now, all we do have is cabal, intrigue and corruption galore.
Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 68:
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
end quotes
And given the reality of who these “delegates” really are, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan, all of whom have been trusted beforehand to prostitute their votes or they would not have been selected by the Democrats in the first place, clearly the people of America DID NOT select these “delegates,” only the Democrats did.
So the will of the American people really has been thwarted, as we see by going back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
end quotes
Free from any sinister bias?
Bill Clinton?
Hillary Clinton who was quoted in The Daily Caller article “Hillary Tells Black Church White People Must End ‘Systemic Racism’” by Alex Pfeiffer, White House Correspondent, on April 20, 2016 as saying it is the “responsibility of white people” to end systemic racism and “(W)e have to be honest about systemic racism and particularly the responsibility of white people, not just people in public life but all of us,” and “(W)e all have implicit biases, they are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia, and what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them,” adding, “I don’t have the answers, I’m not a behavioral psychologist or anything, but I think that needs to be done in every community kind of setting we can find that is open to doing it?”
Andy Cuomo?
Kathy Sheehan?
Yeah, right, Al, because that is about as BULL**** as BULL**** can possibly get, which again takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And as to the business of corruption, time as well as means are what the Democrats have had plenty of going back to at least the 1850’s, so that all of the safeguards against cabal, intrigue, and especially corruption in the selection of an American president promised to the American people by Al Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68 are nothing more than a fence made out of moonbeams and fairy dust.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-337638
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 23, 2021 at 10:34 am
Paul Plante says:
And here we need to go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) story “Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Aiming To Overturn Election Results” Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday with Miles Parks on December 12, 2020, for a moment, to see the spin being put on this story by the propagandists as they pump out their poison, to wit:
MILES PARKS, BYLINE: I talked to University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about all of the various lawsuits that the Trump campaign has brought over the past month.
She said she was confident this was how the court would rule.
And she’s been, in general, encouraged by how the legal system has held up through all this.
But she was still worried about the fact that it had to deal with these sorts of cases, you know, fraud without evidence cases at all.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: It’s a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost.
So our system is being stress tested.
I think on the whole, we’re coming out OK.
end quotes
What infantile BULL****!
Our system is being “stress-tested?”
But isn’t that why the “system” exists in the first place, at least in a country that purports to have “honest, free and fair” elections conducted pursuant to RULE OF LAW?
But there has been a REVOLUTION in America along the lines of the German Revolution of 1918-19, and we are now a socialist “People’s Democracy” with a new constitution being written as we speak and imposed on us by FIAT, no longer a Republic of, by, and for the People, so all bets are now off, as the system is re-invented before our eyes, which takes us back to NPR once again. to wit:
SIMON: Miles, are there any legal challenges left to the election results?
PARKS: Legal experts seem to think this is basically the end of the road.
You know, Trump had, as I mentioned, pinned his hopes on the Supreme Court.
And that obviously has not worked out.
The Electoral College meets in all 50 states and D.C. on Monday to cast votes, solidifying Biden’s victory.
Trump had previously said he would accept the Electoral College’s decision.
But, obviously, a statement like that is not binding.
President Trump has been known to say something and do something else.
So we’ll see.
He says he’s going to continue fighting the election results.
The question is, what form does that take?
SIMON: NPR’s Miles Parks, thanks so much.
PARKS: Thanks, Scott.
end quotes
And against that set of infantile comments by University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about these Constitutional challenges to HOW the 2020 presidential election was actually conducted being “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” let’s go back to the actual Texas lawsuit, to wit:
Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking — or allowing — non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
end quotes
And right there, people is what Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is calling a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” while University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein calls it “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” the state of Texas asking the United States Supreme Court to rule on a QUESTION OF LAW – did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment by taking or allowing non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
And it really is a very simple question, so the answers to concomitant questions of exactly how that could possibly be a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” or “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost” remain quite elusive, which takes us back to the Texas lawsuit, to wit:
3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms.
end quotes
Of course, they did – they just invented a new way of electing American presidents, which was what the exercise was all about in the first place as those states simply rejected our old Constitution and tossed it into the trashbin of history, to replace it with their new version, which from here on out, will be the way all future presidential elections are held to ensure that only a Democrat will be president, which takes us back to the lawsuit, to wit:
Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors.
end quotes
Except they didn’t “flagrantly violate constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors” – they flagrantly tossed those constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors right into the trash where they feel they belong.
Getting back to the lawsuit:
In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country.
In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis.”
“… Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
This case is no different.
5. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern.
State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
end quotes
And that is how you do it, people – if you are a public official and you want to change the rules or the Constitution, you simply do it, which thought takes us back to November 8, 1787 and the Centinel III political essay by Centinel, to wit:
A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government will shew that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation …. and yet as blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state, to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government.
Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office) continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-337803
Paul Plante says:
And here we need to go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) story “Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Aiming To Overturn Election Results” Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday with Miles Parks on December 12, 2020, for a moment, to see the spin being put on this story by the propagandists as they pump out their poison, to wit:
MILES PARKS, BYLINE: I talked to University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about all of the various lawsuits that the Trump campaign has brought over the past month.
She said she was confident this was how the court would rule.
And she’s been, in general, encouraged by how the legal system has held up through all this.
But she was still worried about the fact that it had to deal with these sorts of cases, you know, fraud without evidence cases at all.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: It’s a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost.
So our system is being stress tested.
I think on the whole, we’re coming out OK.
end quotes
What infantile BULL****!
Our system is being “stress-tested?”
But isn’t that why the “system” exists in the first place, at least in a country that purports to have “honest, free and fair” elections conducted pursuant to RULE OF LAW?
But there has been a REVOLUTION in America along the lines of the German Revolution of 1918-19, and we are now a socialist “People’s Democracy” with a new constitution being written as we speak and imposed on us by FIAT, no longer a Republic of, by, and for the People, so all bets are now off, as the system is re-invented before our eyes, which takes us back to NPR once again. to wit:
SIMON: Miles, are there any legal challenges left to the election results?
PARKS: Legal experts seem to think this is basically the end of the road.
You know, Trump had, as I mentioned, pinned his hopes on the Supreme Court.
And that obviously has not worked out.
The Electoral College meets in all 50 states and D.C. on Monday to cast votes, solidifying Biden’s victory.
Trump had previously said he would accept the Electoral College’s decision.
But, obviously, a statement like that is not binding.
President Trump has been known to say something and do something else.
So we’ll see.
He says he’s going to continue fighting the election results.
The question is, what form does that take?
SIMON: NPR’s Miles Parks, thanks so much.
PARKS: Thanks, Scott.
end quotes
And against that set of infantile comments by University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about these Constitutional challenges to HOW the 2020 presidential election was actually conducted being “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” let’s go back to the actual Texas lawsuit, to wit:
Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking — or allowing — non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
end quotes
And right there, people is what Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is calling a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” while University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein calls it “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” the state of Texas asking the United States Supreme Court to rule on a QUESTION OF LAW – did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment by taking or allowing non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
And it really is a very simple question, so the answers to concomitant questions of exactly how that could possibly be a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” or “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost” remain quite elusive, which takes us back to the Texas lawsuit, to wit:
3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms.
end quotes
Of course, they did – they just invented a new way of electing American presidents, which was what the exercise was all about in the first place as those states simply rejected our old Constitution and tossed it into the trashbin of history, to replace it with their new version, which from here on out, will be the way all future presidential elections are held to ensure that only a Democrat will be president, which takes us back to the lawsuit, to wit:
Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors.
end quotes
Except they didn’t “flagrantly violate constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors” – they flagrantly tossed those constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors right into the trash where they feel they belong.
Getting back to the lawsuit:
In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country.
In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis.”
“… Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
This case is no different.
5. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern.
State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
end quotes
And that is how you do it, people – if you are a public official and you want to change the rules or the Constitution, you simply do it, which thought takes us back to November 8, 1787 and the Centinel III political essay by Centinel, to wit:
A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government will shew that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation …. and yet as blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state, to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government.
Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office) continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-337803
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 24, 2021 at 10:12 am
Paul Plante says:
And that thought from Chapter I of the Manifesto of the Communist Party about the bourgeoisie (Republicans) producing its own grave-diggers so that its fall and the victory of the proletariat (Democrats) are equally inevitable, all of which just happened with the un-Constitutional ascension of Joe Biden into the white house where he can now rule by executive decree as a dictator like Caesar, takes us back for a moment to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: Nina, if this was such a slam dunk that it took the Supreme Court about a day to decide to do nothing, why did Texas file the suit?
end quotes
As to why Texas filed the suit, one would think that Audie Cornish, if she was really interested in the answer, would have contacted Texas directly and put that very question to them for an answer, and since I wasn’t in on any of the planning, I will not venture a guess, but as to why the Supreme Court DID NOT take up the motion, I think we can glean some information on that subject from ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [November 25, 2020], JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
And here we have to note that this case was about the First Amendment, not specifically voting, or electing a United States president, but that does not have any affect on why the Supreme Court does not take up politically-charged cases like this one, as we see from the following:
What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application?
Our colleagues offer two possible answers.
Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease.
end quotes
Note that language: THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages!
That is executive orders in the plural, which means ALL COVID-related executive orders.
So having established that precedent, one could come to the logical conclusion that the Supreme Court was going to stay with that same precedent in this case.
Getting back to that concurrence:
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic?
In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis.
But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other concurring circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack.
Things never go well when we do.
end quotes
But shelter in place they did, and the rest is now another chapter in the book of American history titled “The Decline and Fall of the United States of America Republic,” which now is no more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338036
Paul Plante says:
And that thought from Chapter I of the Manifesto of the Communist Party about the bourgeoisie (Republicans) producing its own grave-diggers so that its fall and the victory of the proletariat (Democrats) are equally inevitable, all of which just happened with the un-Constitutional ascension of Joe Biden into the white house where he can now rule by executive decree as a dictator like Caesar, takes us back for a moment to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: Nina, if this was such a slam dunk that it took the Supreme Court about a day to decide to do nothing, why did Texas file the suit?
end quotes
As to why Texas filed the suit, one would think that Audie Cornish, if she was really interested in the answer, would have contacted Texas directly and put that very question to them for an answer, and since I wasn’t in on any of the planning, I will not venture a guess, but as to why the Supreme Court DID NOT take up the motion, I think we can glean some information on that subject from ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [November 25, 2020], JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
And here we have to note that this case was about the First Amendment, not specifically voting, or electing a United States president, but that does not have any affect on why the Supreme Court does not take up politically-charged cases like this one, as we see from the following:
What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application?
Our colleagues offer two possible answers.
Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease.
end quotes
Note that language: THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages!
That is executive orders in the plural, which means ALL COVID-related executive orders.
So having established that precedent, one could come to the logical conclusion that the Supreme Court was going to stay with that same precedent in this case.
Getting back to that concurrence:
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic?
In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis.
But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other concurring circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack.
Things never go well when we do.
end quotes
But shelter in place they did, and the rest is now another chapter in the book of American history titled “The Decline and Fall of the United States of America Republic,” which now is no more.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338036
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 24, 2021 at 9:44 pm
Paul Plante says:
And while we continue to consider the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, let us make it patently clear that when the Court rules someone has no STANDING, that ruling in no way, shape or manner can be construed as a ruling on the merits, or lack thereof.
So Texas not having STANDING to sue is vastly different from Texas not having a leg to stand on, which is the SPIN the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio (NPR) who pump their political poison into the minds of the gullible and easily misled in America are trying to put on it, as if it were a frivolous suit.
Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so.
Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.
But being propagandists who do spread poison in the minds of the gullible in America and the easily misled, the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio are going to continue to conflate lack of standing with lack of merit, just as they are still bleating about an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021, as if there actually had been one, which there wasn’t, just as there was no “official” proceeding to obstruct on 6 January 2021, because on 11 December, 2020, the Supreme Court had already declared that Joe Biden was the president and they were not going to interfere in the matter, and that was the end of it, which was the subject of a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.
It was plain that the justices had no patience for Texas’ attempt to enlist the court in an effort to tell other states how to run their elections.
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.
In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.
In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort.
“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,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.
On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with his own brief.
“Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”
Mr. Trump and his allies switched tactics after the election, filing a barrage of suits in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Georgia claiming that all manner of fraud had compromised the vote results.
While some of these claims were supported by sworn statements from witnesses, judge after judge in case after case ruled that the evidence was not persuasive, credible or anywhere near enough to give Mr. Trump the extraordinary relief he requested: a judicial order overturning the results of an election.
end quotes
So the bottom line is that lack of standing is not lack of merit, but so what?
Which takes us back to that filing once more, to see what the NEW WAY of conducting presidential elections in the United States of America will now look like in the future since the Supreme Court in essence just ruled our Constitution a dead letter with respect to how presidential elections are now to be conducted in Democrat-controlled states while at the same time revoking our constitutional protections to have honest, free and fair elections for those of us who are not Democrats, to wit:
6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not.
This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States.
By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:
• Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers — despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden.
A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.
All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a-151a”).
8. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law.
Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court.
In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots.
A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation.
Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4-4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court.
Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
******
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”).
Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
******
16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future.
This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review.
The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.
end quotes
Except as we are clearly seeing here, not only did the Supreme Court disagree with that, but so did the New York Times and NPR and the Democrats, which takes us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338422
Paul Plante says:
And while we continue to consider the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, let us make it patently clear that when the Court rules someone has no STANDING, that ruling in no way, shape or manner can be construed as a ruling on the merits, or lack thereof.
So Texas not having STANDING to sue is vastly different from Texas not having a leg to stand on, which is the SPIN the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio (NPR) who pump their political poison into the minds of the gullible and easily misled in America are trying to put on it, as if it were a frivolous suit.
Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so.
Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.
But being propagandists who do spread poison in the minds of the gullible in America and the easily misled, the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio are going to continue to conflate lack of standing with lack of merit, just as they are still bleating about an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021, as if there actually had been one, which there wasn’t, just as there was no “official” proceeding to obstruct on 6 January 2021, because on 11 December, 2020, the Supreme Court had already declared that Joe Biden was the president and they were not going to interfere in the matter, and that was the end of it, which was the subject of a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.
It was plain that the justices had no patience for Texas’ attempt to enlist the court in an effort to tell other states how to run their elections.
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.
In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.
In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort.
“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,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.
On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with his own brief.
“Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”
Mr. Trump and his allies switched tactics after the election, filing a barrage of suits in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Georgia claiming that all manner of fraud had compromised the vote results.
While some of these claims were supported by sworn statements from witnesses, judge after judge in case after case ruled that the evidence was not persuasive, credible or anywhere near enough to give Mr. Trump the extraordinary relief he requested: a judicial order overturning the results of an election.
end quotes
So the bottom line is that lack of standing is not lack of merit, but so what?
Which takes us back to that filing once more, to see what the NEW WAY of conducting presidential elections in the United States of America will now look like in the future since the Supreme Court in essence just ruled our Constitution a dead letter with respect to how presidential elections are now to be conducted in Democrat-controlled states while at the same time revoking our constitutional protections to have honest, free and fair elections for those of us who are not Democrats, to wit:
6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not.
This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States.
By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:
• Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers — despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden.
A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.
All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a-151a”).
8. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law.
Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court.
In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots.
A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation.
Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4-4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court.
Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
******
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”).
Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
******
16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future.
This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review.
The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.
end quotes
Except as we are clearly seeing here, not only did the Supreme Court disagree with that, but so did the New York Times and NPR and the Democrats, which takes us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338422
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 26, 2021 at 8:44 pm
Paul Plante says:
And we continue to ponder the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go back to this New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, for a moment, to wit:
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
end quotes
Except that is FALSE – the Supreme Court said nothing at all about the so-called “democratic process, a subject covered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, where we had as follows:
An Ohio statute requires an independent candidate for President to file a statement of candidacy and nominating petition in March in order to appear on the general election ballot in November.
On April 24, 1980, petitioner Anderson announced that he was an independent candidate for President.
Thereafter, on May 16, 1980, his supporters tendered a nominating petition and statement of candidacy, satisfying the substantive requirements for ballot eligibility, to respondent Ohio Secretary of State.
Respondent refused to accept the documents because they had not been filed within the time required by the Ohio statute.
Anderson and petitioner voters then filed an action in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners and ordered respondent to place Anderson’s name on the general election ballot, holding that the statutory deadline was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the early deadline served the State’s interest in voter education by giving voters a longer opportunity to see how Presidential candidates withstand the close scrutiny of a political campaign.
Held: Ohio’s early filing deadline places an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of petitioner Anderson’s supporters.
end quotes
Now, there, unlike here, we do see the Supreme Court upholding the rights of LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS like myself who are political independents, people who don’t drink the KOOL-AID of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
Going back to that decision, it continues as follows:
(a) In resolving constitutional challenges to a State’s election laws, a court must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.
It must then identify and evaluate the interests asserted by the State to justify the burden imposed by its rule.
In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of these interests, it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.
Only after weighing all these factors is the court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
(b) The Ohio filing deadline not only burdens the associational rights of independent voters and candidates, it also places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process.
A burden that falls unequally on independent candidates or on new or small political parties impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment, and discriminates against those candidates and voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties.
end quotes
And that is some 42 percent of the voters in America who essentially were disenfranchised in this 2020 presidential election in the sense that our votes count for nothing when the so-called “electors” in the so-called “electoral college” are nothing more than mindless drones who must vote exactly as the “state” that appointed them orders them to vote, for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Getting back to that decision:
And in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest, because the President and Vice President are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation, and the impact of the votes cast in each State affects the votes cast in other States.
end quotes
Except the president and vice-president we now have DO NOT represent all the voters in the nation, and it is patently ridiculous to think they do, after the president has dismissed American voters as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” to be placed in Democrat Hillary Clinton’s “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.”
And that statement of the Supreme Court in 1983 about the impact of the votes cast in each State affecting the votes cast in other States applies directly to the 2020 election, but when confronted with the opportunity to develop that thought further, as we have witnessed, the Supreme Court made a political decision to take a pass, which takes us back to that decision from 1983, to wit:
(c) None of the three interests that Ohio seeks to further by its early filing deadline justifies that deadline.
As to the State’s asserted interest in voter education, it is unrealistic in the modern world to suggest that it takes more than seven months to inform the electorate about the qualifications of a particular candidate simply because he lacks a partisan label.
Moreover, it is not self-evident that the interest in voter education is served at all by the early filing deadline.
The State’s asserted interest in equal treatment for partisan and independent candidates is not achieved by imposing the early filing deadline on both, since, although a candidate participating in a primary election must declare his candidacy on the same date as an independent, both the burdens and benefits of the respective requirements are materially different, and the reasons for early filing for a primary candidate are inapplicable to independent candidates in the general election.
And the State’s asserted interest in political stability amounts to a desire to protect existing political parties from competition generated by independent candidates who have previously been affiliated with a party, an interest that conflicts with First Amendment values.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, POWELL, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 806.
end quotes
There is the real democratic process outlined, not this FARCE that put Joe Biden into the white house, but truthfully, expecting this Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, to understand that is a pipe dream.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338676
Paul Plante says:
And we continue to ponder the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go back to this New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, for a moment, to wit:
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
end quotes
Except that is FALSE – the Supreme Court said nothing at all about the so-called “democratic process, a subject covered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, where we had as follows:
An Ohio statute requires an independent candidate for President to file a statement of candidacy and nominating petition in March in order to appear on the general election ballot in November.
On April 24, 1980, petitioner Anderson announced that he was an independent candidate for President.
Thereafter, on May 16, 1980, his supporters tendered a nominating petition and statement of candidacy, satisfying the substantive requirements for ballot eligibility, to respondent Ohio Secretary of State.
Respondent refused to accept the documents because they had not been filed within the time required by the Ohio statute.
Anderson and petitioner voters then filed an action in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners and ordered respondent to place Anderson’s name on the general election ballot, holding that the statutory deadline was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the early deadline served the State’s interest in voter education by giving voters a longer opportunity to see how Presidential candidates withstand the close scrutiny of a political campaign.
Held: Ohio’s early filing deadline places an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of petitioner Anderson’s supporters.
end quotes
Now, there, unlike here, we do see the Supreme Court upholding the rights of LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS like myself who are political independents, people who don’t drink the KOOL-AID of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
Going back to that decision, it continues as follows:
(a) In resolving constitutional challenges to a State’s election laws, a court must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.
It must then identify and evaluate the interests asserted by the State to justify the burden imposed by its rule.
In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of these interests, it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.
Only after weighing all these factors is the court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
(b) The Ohio filing deadline not only burdens the associational rights of independent voters and candidates, it also places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process.
A burden that falls unequally on independent candidates or on new or small political parties impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment, and discriminates against those candidates and voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties.
end quotes
And that is some 42 percent of the voters in America who essentially were disenfranchised in this 2020 presidential election in the sense that our votes count for nothing when the so-called “electors” in the so-called “electoral college” are nothing more than mindless drones who must vote exactly as the “state” that appointed them orders them to vote, for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Getting back to that decision:
And in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest, because the President and Vice President are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation, and the impact of the votes cast in each State affects the votes cast in other States.
end quotes
Except the president and vice-president we now have DO NOT represent all the voters in the nation, and it is patently ridiculous to think they do, after the president has dismissed American voters as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” to be placed in Democrat Hillary Clinton’s “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.”
And that statement of the Supreme Court in 1983 about the impact of the votes cast in each State affecting the votes cast in other States applies directly to the 2020 election, but when confronted with the opportunity to develop that thought further, as we have witnessed, the Supreme Court made a political decision to take a pass, which takes us back to that decision from 1983, to wit:
(c) None of the three interests that Ohio seeks to further by its early filing deadline justifies that deadline.
As to the State’s asserted interest in voter education, it is unrealistic in the modern world to suggest that it takes more than seven months to inform the electorate about the qualifications of a particular candidate simply because he lacks a partisan label.
Moreover, it is not self-evident that the interest in voter education is served at all by the early filing deadline.
The State’s asserted interest in equal treatment for partisan and independent candidates is not achieved by imposing the early filing deadline on both, since, although a candidate participating in a primary election must declare his candidacy on the same date as an independent, both the burdens and benefits of the respective requirements are materially different, and the reasons for early filing for a primary candidate are inapplicable to independent candidates in the general election.
And the State’s asserted interest in political stability amounts to a desire to protect existing political parties from competition generated by independent candidates who have previously been affiliated with a party, an interest that conflicts with First Amendment values.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, POWELL, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 806.
end quotes
There is the real democratic process outlined, not this FARCE that put Joe Biden into the white house, but truthfully, expecting this Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, to understand that is a pipe dream.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-338676
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 28, 2021 at 9:56 pm
Paul Plante says:
And while we are examining these various statements in the media about the motives behind or underlying the Supreme Court’s political decision to not get involved in Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go to a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots” by Adam Liptak on Feb. 22, 2021, seventy-three (73) after it declined to involve itself in any political disputes concerning the 2020 election, to see if we can glean any further thinking of the Justices on election matters such as was the case with Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not hear an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to disqualify mailed ballots in the 2020 presidential election that arrived after Election Day.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons for turning down the case, which as a practical matter marked the end of Supreme Court litigation over the election.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented, saying the court should have used it to provide guidance in future elections.
end quotes
And there is one sentence we should focus our attention on as LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS – the abject failure of the Supreme Court to make any effort, no matter how slight, to uphold the provisions of the United States Constitution, or to put in place legal safeguards to ensure the Constitution is not violated when it comes to suffrage being equally available and accessible to those of us who aren’t card-carrying, dues paying Democrats and don’t want to be.
Getting back to that story:
The dissenting justices acknowledged that the number of ballots at issue in the case was too small to affect President Biden’s victory in the state.
end quotes
So in the end, and us older Americans have known this for a long time now, fraud in our elections is tolerated by the courts, who in actuality are powerless to prevent it, and equally powerless to punish it, especially with the Constitutional system of ensuring integrity in presidential elections having been previously gutted by the two main-stream political parties with the connivance of the courts, the judges of which are themselves political appointees of one or the other of those two parties, which takes us back to that particular case, to wit:
But the legal question the case presented — about the power of state courts to revise election laws — was, they said, a significant one that should be resolved without the pressure of an impending election.
end quotes
And there is another statement we should all take heed of – the reality that when it comes to election disputes of a presidential election, do not count on the Supreme Court to be there for you as an American citizen to uphold your rights to an honest, free and fair election, because they won’t be – presidential elections being in the political arena where the Justices of the Supreme Court do not venture.
Getting back to that story:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that ballots sent before Election Day could be counted if they arrived up to three days after.
On two occasions before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case, though several justices expressed doubts about the state court’s power to override the State Legislature, which had set an Election Day deadline for receiving mailed ballots.
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the time was now right to take up the case.
“At first blush,” he wrote, “it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises.”
“After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election.”
“But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”
“Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election,” Justice Thomas wrote, “we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions.”
end quotes
So right there, people, despite any ignorant horse**** we are being fed by Mark Zuckerberg’s National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and the main-stream media which pumps out pure ignorance in such torrents that they have managed to turn this whole nation into a huge pack of morons and idiots and fools, is the real reason that the Supreme Court made yet another political decision, as that one clearly was, to stay clear out of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, which takes us back to that story once more, as follows:
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, agreed that “our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”
“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”
On Oct. 19, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, the justices deadlocked, 4 to 4, on an emergency application in the case.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.
On the other side were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Later that month, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.
In a statement issued at the time, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” Justice Alito wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”
“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”
But there was not enough time, he wrote.
Still, Justice Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case.
“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Even after the election, Pennsylvania Republicans continued to seek Supreme Court review in the case, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, saying the justices should address the issue it presented in an orderly way.
“By resolving the important and recurring questions now, the court can provide desperately needed guidance to state legislatures and courts across the country outside the context of a hotly disputed election and before the next election,” their brief said.
“The alternative is for the court to leave legislatures and courts with a lack of advance guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law — only to be drawn into answering these questions in future after-the-fact litigation over a contested election, with the accompanying time pressures and perceptions of partisan interest.”
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the court had missed an opportunity.
“One wonders what this court waits for,” he wrote.
“We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules.”
“Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.”
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” Justice Thomas wrote.
“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.”
“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”
end quotes
And because they are political, we are never going to get it, and thank you, Justice Thomas, for making that all incandescently clear!
And thank you as well to the Cape Charles Mirror for making sure that that message gets transmitted to all of those in America who turn to the Cape Charles Mirror for their news as opposed to the New York Times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339249
Paul Plante says:
And while we are examining these various statements in the media about the motives behind or underlying the Supreme Court’s political decision to not get involved in Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go to a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots” by Adam Liptak on Feb. 22, 2021, seventy-three (73) after it declined to involve itself in any political disputes concerning the 2020 election, to see if we can glean any further thinking of the Justices on election matters such as was the case with Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not hear an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to disqualify mailed ballots in the 2020 presidential election that arrived after Election Day.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons for turning down the case, which as a practical matter marked the end of Supreme Court litigation over the election.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented, saying the court should have used it to provide guidance in future elections.
end quotes
And there is one sentence we should focus our attention on as LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS – the abject failure of the Supreme Court to make any effort, no matter how slight, to uphold the provisions of the United States Constitution, or to put in place legal safeguards to ensure the Constitution is not violated when it comes to suffrage being equally available and accessible to those of us who aren’t card-carrying, dues paying Democrats and don’t want to be.
Getting back to that story:
The dissenting justices acknowledged that the number of ballots at issue in the case was too small to affect President Biden’s victory in the state.
end quotes
So in the end, and us older Americans have known this for a long time now, fraud in our elections is tolerated by the courts, who in actuality are powerless to prevent it, and equally powerless to punish it, especially with the Constitutional system of ensuring integrity in presidential elections having been previously gutted by the two main-stream political parties with the connivance of the courts, the judges of which are themselves political appointees of one or the other of those two parties, which takes us back to that particular case, to wit:
But the legal question the case presented — about the power of state courts to revise election laws — was, they said, a significant one that should be resolved without the pressure of an impending election.
end quotes
And there is another statement we should all take heed of – the reality that when it comes to election disputes of a presidential election, do not count on the Supreme Court to be there for you as an American citizen to uphold your rights to an honest, free and fair election, because they won’t be – presidential elections being in the political arena where the Justices of the Supreme Court do not venture.
Getting back to that story:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that ballots sent before Election Day could be counted if they arrived up to three days after.
On two occasions before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case, though several justices expressed doubts about the state court’s power to override the State Legislature, which had set an Election Day deadline for receiving mailed ballots.
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the time was now right to take up the case.
“At first blush,” he wrote, “it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises.”
“After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election.”
“But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”
“Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election,” Justice Thomas wrote, “we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions.”
end quotes
So right there, people, despite any ignorant horse**** we are being fed by Mark Zuckerberg’s National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and the main-stream media which pumps out pure ignorance in such torrents that they have managed to turn this whole nation into a huge pack of morons and idiots and fools, is the real reason that the Supreme Court made yet another political decision, as that one clearly was, to stay clear out of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, which takes us back to that story once more, as follows:
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, agreed that “our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”
“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”
On Oct. 19, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, the justices deadlocked, 4 to 4, on an emergency application in the case.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.
On the other side were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Later that month, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.
In a statement issued at the time, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” Justice Alito wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”
“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”
But there was not enough time, he wrote.
Still, Justice Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case.
“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Even after the election, Pennsylvania Republicans continued to seek Supreme Court review in the case, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, saying the justices should address the issue it presented in an orderly way.
“By resolving the important and recurring questions now, the court can provide desperately needed guidance to state legislatures and courts across the country outside the context of a hotly disputed election and before the next election,” their brief said.
“The alternative is for the court to leave legislatures and courts with a lack of advance guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law — only to be drawn into answering these questions in future after-the-fact litigation over a contested election, with the accompanying time pressures and perceptions of partisan interest.”
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the court had missed an opportunity.
“One wonders what this court waits for,” he wrote.
“We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules.”
“Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.”
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” Justice Thomas wrote.
“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.”
“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”
end quotes
And because they are political, we are never going to get it, and thank you, Justice Thomas, for making that all incandescently clear!
And thank you as well to the Cape Charles Mirror for making sure that that message gets transmitted to all of those in America who turn to the Cape Charles Mirror for their news as opposed to the New York Times.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339249
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 29, 2021 at 9:29 pm
Paul Plante says:
And to see exactly how it is we ended up with this total BULL**** system that put a two-time loser like Joe Biden into office as this nation’s chief magistrate, as opposed to the system as it was supposed to be as was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate charged by THE PEOPLE with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let’s go to the source itself, that being the United States Supreme Court in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 19–465, Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020, where we have as follows, including absolutely no mention whatsoever of either Hamilton of Federalist No. 68, to wit:
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our Constitution’s method of picking Presidents emerged from an eleventh-hour compromise.
end quotes
That is what the Supreme Court says, but that is not what Federalist No. 68 says.
Getting back to the Supreme Court’s politicized version of history that gives power to the Republican and Democrat parties and takes it clean away from those who are members of either faction, essentially rendering their elective franchise totally worthless, we have:
The issue, one delegate to the Convention remarked, was “the most difficult of all [that] we have had to decide.”
2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 501 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (Farrand).
Despite long debate and many votes, the delegates could not reach an agreement.
See generally N. Peirce & L. Longley,The People’s President 19–22 (rev. 1981).
In the dying days of summer, they referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Eleven to devise a solution.
The Committee returned with a proposal for the Electoral College.
end quotes
For the record, the Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Federalist No. 68 was published by Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, at least six (6) months later, and again, Federalist No. 68 makes no mention of any such compromises, but maybe the Supreme Court knows more about what really did happen than did Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers with James Madison, who did know the inside story as well as living Supreme Court Justice alive today.
Going back to it:
Just two days later, the delegates accepted the recommendation with but a few tweaks.
James Madison later wrote to a friend that the “difficulty of finding an unexceptionable [selection] process” was “deeply felt by the Convention.”
Letter to G. Hay (Aug. 23, 1823), in 3 Farrand 458.
Because “the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session,” Madison continued, “it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies: tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.” Ibid.
Whether less or not, the delegates soon finished their work and departed for home.
The provision they approved about presidential electors is fairly slim.
Article II, §1, cl. 2 says: “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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The next clause (but don’t get attached: it will soon be superseded) set out the procedures the electors were to follow in casting their votes.
In brief, each member of the College would cast votes for two candidates in the presidential field.
The candidate with the greatest number of votes, assuming he had a majority, would become President.
The runner-up would become Vice President.
If no one had a majority, the House of Representatives would take over and decide the winner.
That plan failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, and soon proved unworkable.
end quotes
And that statement about the plan laid out by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties is pure BULL**** when one considers that in FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787 James Madison himself stated thusly:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
end quotes
Political parties are factions!
Our union as a Republic was supposed to break and control the violence of those factions, not surrender our future as a nation and as a people to them, but nonetheless, with the aid of the Supreme Court itself, a very political body riven by faction, that is exactly what happened, which takes us back to Madison in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
That statement alone makes ludicrous the thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, where in Federalist No. 68, Hamilton states thusly, to wit:
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
end quotes
That right there is a direct reference to relationship between the chief executive and any and all political factions in this country, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
end quotes
“Deputed by the society” DOES NOT mean deputed by only the Republican party or Democrat party.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68:
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
end quotes
And note right there the words, “(A)ll these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention,” which makes it seem very much as if in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, Justice Kagan was blowing smoke up our collective ***** when she wrote thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties.
And there for the moment I will rest, to let that all get absorbed before going further into this analysis of the total BULL**** system that rewarded us with a two-time loser like Joe Biden as our chief executive officer.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339570
Paul Plante says:
And to see exactly how it is we ended up with this total BULL**** system that put a two-time loser like Joe Biden into office as this nation’s chief magistrate, as opposed to the system as it was supposed to be as was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate charged by THE PEOPLE with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let’s go to the source itself, that being the United States Supreme Court in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 19–465, Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020, where we have as follows, including absolutely no mention whatsoever of either Hamilton of Federalist No. 68, to wit:
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our Constitution’s method of picking Presidents emerged from an eleventh-hour compromise.
end quotes
That is what the Supreme Court says, but that is not what Federalist No. 68 says.
Getting back to the Supreme Court’s politicized version of history that gives power to the Republican and Democrat parties and takes it clean away from those who are members of either faction, essentially rendering their elective franchise totally worthless, we have:
The issue, one delegate to the Convention remarked, was “the most difficult of all [that] we have had to decide.”
2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 501 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (Farrand).
Despite long debate and many votes, the delegates could not reach an agreement.
See generally N. Peirce & L. Longley,The People’s President 19–22 (rev. 1981).
In the dying days of summer, they referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Eleven to devise a solution.
The Committee returned with a proposal for the Electoral College.
end quotes
For the record, the Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Federalist No. 68 was published by Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, at least six (6) months later, and again, Federalist No. 68 makes no mention of any such compromises, but maybe the Supreme Court knows more about what really did happen than did Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers with James Madison, who did know the inside story as well as living Supreme Court Justice alive today.
Going back to it:
Just two days later, the delegates accepted the recommendation with but a few tweaks.
James Madison later wrote to a friend that the “difficulty of finding an unexceptionable [selection] process” was “deeply felt by the Convention.”
Letter to G. Hay (Aug. 23, 1823), in 3 Farrand 458.
Because “the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session,” Madison continued, “it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies: tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.” Ibid.
Whether less or not, the delegates soon finished their work and departed for home.
The provision they approved about presidential electors is fairly slim.
Article II, §1, cl. 2 says: “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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The next clause (but don’t get attached: it will soon be superseded) set out the procedures the electors were to follow in casting their votes.
In brief, each member of the College would cast votes for two candidates in the presidential field.
The candidate with the greatest number of votes, assuming he had a majority, would become President.
The runner-up would become Vice President.
If no one had a majority, the House of Representatives would take over and decide the winner.
That plan failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, and soon proved unworkable.
end quotes
And that statement about the plan laid out by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties is pure BULL**** when one considers that in FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787 James Madison himself stated thusly:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
end quotes
Political parties are factions!
Our union as a Republic was supposed to break and control the violence of those factions, not surrender our future as a nation and as a people to them, but nonetheless, with the aid of the Supreme Court itself, a very political body riven by faction, that is exactly what happened, which takes us back to Madison in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
That statement alone makes ludicrous the thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, where in Federalist No. 68, Hamilton states thusly, to wit:
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
end quotes
That right there is a direct reference to relationship between the chief executive and any and all political factions in this country, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
end quotes
“Deputed by the society” DOES NOT mean deputed by only the Republican party or Democrat party.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68:
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
end quotes
And note right there the words, “(A)ll these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention,” which makes it seem very much as if in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, Justice Kagan was blowing smoke up our collective ***** when she wrote thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties.
And there for the moment I will rest, to let that all get absorbed before going further into this analysis of the total BULL**** system that rewarded us with a two-time loser like Joe Biden as our chief executive officer.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339570
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 30, 2021 at 7:36 pm
Paul Plante says:
So, yes, people – factions!
Two warring factions control our national politics, starting with who will be the chief magistrate.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan herself, who was nominated by Hussein Obama on May 10, 2010, is a member or product of a faction, and so it should come as no surprise to those of us who are LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS who are not members of a faction that she would defend that system by which the factions effectively stripped us of a choice when it comes to who will be the next U.S. President, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, where James Madison stated thusly:
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.
end quotes
Despite the fact that those words about the instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished were published in 1787, in our times today, and especially after this FARCE of an election in November of 2020, they are still so very true, which takes us back to Jemmy, as follows:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
end quotes
And that statement by James Madison in 1787 about the public good being disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties makes it quite clear that when Elena Kagan tells us in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON that the plan for electing U.S. presidents outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, she is full of **** and is making up American history by pulling it out of her ***, because in 1787, the parties or factions obviously already existed, or James Madison would not have made mention of them in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.
It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.
These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quotes
By that definition, a number of citizens who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, and to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community, James Madison is talking about the Democrat party today, which takes us back to Justice Kagan in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, to wit:
The Nation’s first contested presidential election occurred in 1796, after George Washington’s retirement.
John Adams came in first among the candidates, and Thomas Jefferson second.
That meant the leaders of the era’s two warring political parties — the Federalists and the Republicans — became President and Vice President respectively.
(One might think of this as fodder for a new season of Veep.)
Four years later, a different problem arose.
Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran that year as a Republican Party ticket, with the former meant to be President and the latter meant to be Vice.
For that plan to succeed, Jefferson had to come in first and Burr just behind him.
Instead, Jefferson came in first and Burr . . . did too.
Every elector who voted for Jefferson also voted for Burr, producing a tie.
That threw the election into the House of Representatives, which took no fewer than 36 ballots to elect Jefferson.
(Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage — but possibly in the cemetery too — by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson, whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic.)
By then, everyone had had enough of the Electoral College’s original voting rules.
The result was the Twelfth Amendment, whose main part provided that electors would vote separately for President and Vice President.
The Amendment, ratified in 1804, says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . .; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted.”
end quotes
And once again, let me pause here to let that all sink in.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339769
Paul Plante says:
So, yes, people – factions!
Two warring factions control our national politics, starting with who will be the chief magistrate.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan herself, who was nominated by Hussein Obama on May 10, 2010, is a member or product of a faction, and so it should come as no surprise to those of us who are LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS who are not members of a faction that she would defend that system by which the factions effectively stripped us of a choice when it comes to who will be the next U.S. President, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, where James Madison stated thusly:
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.
end quotes
Despite the fact that those words about the instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished were published in 1787, in our times today, and especially after this FARCE of an election in November of 2020, they are still so very true, which takes us back to Jemmy, as follows:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
end quotes
And that statement by James Madison in 1787 about the public good being disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties makes it quite clear that when Elena Kagan tells us in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON that the plan for electing U.S. presidents outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, she is full of **** and is making up American history by pulling it out of her ***, because in 1787, the parties or factions obviously already existed, or James Madison would not have made mention of them in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.
It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.
These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quotes
By that definition, a number of citizens who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, and to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community, James Madison is talking about the Democrat party today, which takes us back to Justice Kagan in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, to wit:
The Nation’s first contested presidential election occurred in 1796, after George Washington’s retirement.
John Adams came in first among the candidates, and Thomas Jefferson second.
That meant the leaders of the era’s two warring political parties — the Federalists and the Republicans — became President and Vice President respectively.
(One might think of this as fodder for a new season of Veep.)
Four years later, a different problem arose.
Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran that year as a Republican Party ticket, with the former meant to be President and the latter meant to be Vice.
For that plan to succeed, Jefferson had to come in first and Burr just behind him.
Instead, Jefferson came in first and Burr . . . did too.
Every elector who voted for Jefferson also voted for Burr, producing a tie.
That threw the election into the House of Representatives, which took no fewer than 36 ballots to elect Jefferson.
(Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage — but possibly in the cemetery too — by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson, whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic.)
By then, everyone had had enough of the Electoral College’s original voting rules.
The result was the Twelfth Amendment, whose main part provided that electors would vote separately for President and Vice President.
The Amendment, ratified in 1804, says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . .; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted.”
end quotes
And once again, let me pause here to let that all sink in.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-339769
Re: TO HEAL NATION, BIDEN MUST APOLOGIZE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 31, 2021 at 6:30 pm
Paul Plante says:
Which thought takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And when we stop to consider what Justice Kagan is saying about Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failing to anticipate the rise of political parties, we can readily discern that when it comes to the business of corruption, the Democrats have been practicing and perfecting the art now since the 1800’s, and their means of doing so comes from their party structure, which not only keeps the art of the business of corruption alive, but insures that is is continually passed down to the younger generations, for the good of the party, of course, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
end quotes
And here we, the LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN citizens who are not Democrats and don’t wish to have to be in order to have equal Constitutional rights under the law need to focus on these words, to wit: “in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty,” where “DUTY” is defined as a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility, and that responsibility was supposed to be to We, the American People, not the Democrat party, which is a textbook example of a combination founded upon motives that properly could be denominated corrupt and of a nature to mislead the electors from their duty to We, the American People.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, it goes on as follows:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
end quotes
Which today is pure hogwash, given that Joe Biden is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications to be the leader of a free people who believe in RULE OF LAW.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.
end quotes
But as Justice Kagan makes incandescently clear in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, that system which was to ensure that there would be a constant probability of seeing the station of chief magistrate filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue, has been thoroughly defeated by the Democrats, so that now it is only the talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
And once again, our sincere thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror for giving us this opportunity to see how it is that we have had stripped from us that which was promised by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-340000
Paul Plante says:
Which thought takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And when we stop to consider what Justice Kagan is saying about Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failing to anticipate the rise of political parties, we can readily discern that when it comes to the business of corruption, the Democrats have been practicing and perfecting the art now since the 1800’s, and their means of doing so comes from their party structure, which not only keeps the art of the business of corruption alive, but insures that is is continually passed down to the younger generations, for the good of the party, of course, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
end quotes
And here we, the LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN citizens who are not Democrats and don’t wish to have to be in order to have equal Constitutional rights under the law need to focus on these words, to wit: “in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty,” where “DUTY” is defined as a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility, and that responsibility was supposed to be to We, the American People, not the Democrat party, which is a textbook example of a combination founded upon motives that properly could be denominated corrupt and of a nature to mislead the electors from their duty to We, the American People.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, it goes on as follows:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
end quotes
Which today is pure hogwash, given that Joe Biden is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications to be the leader of a free people who believe in RULE OF LAW.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.
end quotes
But as Justice Kagan makes incandescently clear in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, that system which was to ensure that there would be a constant probability of seeing the station of chief magistrate filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue, has been thoroughly defeated by the Democrats, so that now it is only the talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
And once again, our sincere thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror for giving us this opportunity to see how it is that we have had stripped from us that which was promised by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-340000