A US Election Issue Explained- Trump is right to challenge!

Graham Hill's picture
Submitted by Graham Hill on Fri, 2020-11-06 20:31

Ben Shapiro today has a clip from Hillary Clinton saying the Trump Presidency has been illegitimate because she had the 2016 election stolen from her. That is a woeful incorrect statement given Mrs Clinton was a lawyer. One popular NZ Blog site- and its writer should know better- has repeated the same ignorant and incorrect opinion.

The USA is not a popular democracy: it is a Democratic Constitutional Republic and should not be seen as a popular parliamentary polity like ours. The Democrats disdain for the US Constitution has been alive since Woodrow Wilson’s presidency and was and is constant drumbeat refrain for progressives, now liberals, from then on. Democrats do not like the US Constitution's Article 2 section 1 subpararah 2. That Article says the sate legislatures have the power to determine the nature of the election in their state.

It is not for the State Courts; the Governor; the Lt Governor; the States Secretaries of State; the Board of Electors/Election or the Bureaucrats (as was done in Georgia) to determine the process or change it. There was no delegation or powers either. The Constitution's language is startlingly clear. Changes were effected 2020, one within 90 days of the election (in Nevada) and in two key stone states, Georgia and Pennsylvania, to permit the counting of votes after 3 November are unlawful. In Georgia Democrats have been taking already submitted ballots to electors to get corrections elected AFTER election day.

The Democrats had worked to get laws changed before the election in various states. In Pennsylvania the State legislature would not accept the change and the Democrat lawyers took it to the States Supreme Court (with an elected Democrat majority) which decided to judicially legislate and over rode the legislation passed by the state legislature and the US Constitution.

In Pennsylvania, the states legislature took the issue to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In its second decision, the first denying a stay of the State's Supreme Court. the Chief Justice, the flip flop, the blade of grass in the wind, Judge, Justice Roberts, failed to uphold the US Constitution's Art 2: astonishing as it is appallingly lamentable.

The minority have kept the case in the list for further hearing. Justice Alito sensibly and rightly maintained the case should have been determined before the election so that the counting process would have been clear. A direction was that the post 3 November ballots were to be kept separate. It now seems that the State's Democrat Sec of State for PA did not keep the ballots separate.

A point should be made: we are hearing "count the ballots" and "count the legal ballots" BUT the issue is which are the legal ballots?
Also, the excluding of GoP observers in PA is appalling blow to transparency. The GoP took that to Court and got a result that should and must be permitted. In the face of that obviously fair and just decision the Democrats are appealing that decision. No doubt the Democrats will argue in the Provincial High Street lawyers broken reed style of argument that its observers are the observers. You would think that having Democrat and Republican observers would give credible transparency and integrity to the counting process. But not if you are a Democrat.

The Democrats are gravely undermining the rule of law in the USA. If there is no lawful process, pursuant to the rule of law then Democracy is imperilled. The illegal voting disenfranchises voters. But there will be no requiem for the Constitution and the Republic because Trump Orange Man bad (essentially for not being part of the elitist political establishment of the Philosopher Kings and Queens and their gentry that Fred Spiegel in Revolt Against the Masses has written about) intersectionality and BLM
Perhaps, as my wife suggests, the Organisation of American States, headquartered in Washington DC, which looks into electoral abuses in Banana Republics needs to be looking into this and perhaps ought to have supervised this election.

Daniel Horowitz's article in Blaze is well worth reading: