THE SUPREME COURT CASE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DESPERATE TO QUASH...
Once again, we find that the United States Supreme Court may play a pivotal role in the upcoming 2024 election by refusing to act and affirming the U.S. Constitution.
There is no doubt in my mind that partisan jurists plaid a significant role in allowing unconstitutional perversions of established electoral law to sway the last two presidential elections, specifically by allowing elected officials, bureaucrats, and judges to allow policies and procedures to weaken election procedures to the extent that massive election irregularities were condoned.
The plain, unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution…
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Elections Clause
Known as the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 provides for Congress and state legislatures to regulate the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.
[OCS: Clearly, under the United States Constitution, the power to change election laws and administrative rules and regulations lies with the state legislature. Elected officials, bureaucrats, and judges do not have the constitutional authority to alter “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections” as we saw with several of states during the past few election cycles.]
Under the Elections Clause, each state establishes how it will hold congressional elections, subject to Congress adopting or altering the state requirements (except as to the place of choosing Senators).
The Elections Clause’s Times, Places, and Manner encompasses a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.
States and Congress may also establish sanctions for violating election laws and procedures for recounts and primaries.
The Elections Clause, however, does not permit states or Congress to set voter qualifications for congressional elections, which, under the Constitution, must be the same qualifications necessary to vote for the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Likewise, the Elections Clause does not allow states or Congress to change the qualifications to be a Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate, which are stipulated in Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for the House and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 for the Senate.
The Supreme Court then…
It appears that a cowardly U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for much of the electoral debacle facing the nation when they refused to hear a crucial electoral case and to issue a simple ruling that demands a state must follow the U.S. Constitution and its own state constitution mandating that electoral laws must originate with the state legislature and not state officials or judges. [No. 20-810; Mike Kelly, United States Congressman, et al., Petitioners v. Pennsylvania, et al.; December 15, 2020]
The Supreme Court Now…
The North Carolina case before the Supreme Court asserts that the Elections Clause Vests State Legislatures with Authority To Set the Rules Governing Elections, not State Courts. [No. 21-1271; Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Harper, et al.; March 21, 2022]
Will the Democrats manipulate a lower court to allow the Supreme Court to punt?
Major elections case could ‘fall off’ Supreme Court docket, court watchers warn
Legal analysts say they see signs that the Supreme Court will try to back away from a hot potato case that poses big questions about who gets the final say over state elections laws.
[OCS: Are the progressive media propagandists masquerading as legal analysts attempting to condition the battlefield and signal the Supreme Court that it is OK to drop this case which may severely impact the 2024 election cycle?]
The case came out of North Carolina, where the Republican-led General Assembly argued that the U.S. Constitution makes the legislature — not state judges or bureaucrats — the deciders of elections procedure.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case last year and is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.
The high court asked for a new round of briefing last week after the North Carolina Supreme Court said it would revisit the case.
“It’s very likely the [state] court nullifies the prior decision, which would remove the Supreme Court case from the docket, so the Supreme Court may not even decide the huge, big, controversial independent state legislature case. It may just fall off the docket altogether,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law.
The case was considered to be one of the most consequential of this Supreme Court term. Liberal activists said a ruling for North Carolina’s legislature could upend voting rights protections in states across the country.
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, said it’s not clear whether the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rehearing will make the federal court case moot. He said the justices probably would rather have the case disappear from the docket.
“A dismissal is certainly possible now, and I’m sure many of the justices would prefer not having to rule either way, at least not yet,” Mr. Shapiro said.
They may have to rule on the issue at a later date, perhaps during an election year.
The case stemmed from a dispute between North Carolina’s legislature and state courts over who has the final say on congressional district maps. The state’s high court tossed the legislature’s map and imposed its own. <Source>
Federal Courts cannot overturn an election.
It is established law that a court cannot overturn a nationwide federal election in the United States. The power to conduct national elections is granted to the states by the Constitution, and the federal government has limited authority to intervene in the conduct of elections.
It is strictly a state matter. While there are mechanisms in place to challenge the outcome of an election, such as through recounts or legal challenges, ultimately it is the responsibility of the states to certify the results of federal elections.
In cases where there are allegations of voter fraud or other irregularities, the appropriate legal recourse is to file a lawsuit in state or federal court seeking to challenge the election results. However, the burden of proof in such cases is high. Courts generally require concrete evidence of significant fraud or irregularities in order to prevent certification of a state’s election results.
This leads directly to the Democrats and the Deep State for perpetrating the January 6 false flag operation which interrupted legal congressional challenges to individual state vote certifications and the possible seating of a slate of alternative electors. Viewed in this context, the agitator-led mini-riot characterized as an “insurrection” makes perfect sense as to why the Democrats and their deep state apparatchiks are so disturbed by the release of the actual video footage showing what took place within the Capitol complex. And why the Congressional Democrat Leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser were so adamant that there be no National Guard protection that day until after the certification hearing was delayed.
There was an insurrection … but it was actually a soft coup d'état by the progressive communist democrats and their cadre of deep state operatives.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will act – regardless of what the biased North Carolina Supreme Court decides.
We are so screwed.
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar
“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS