If the justices of the Supreme Court have the courage to stick to principle, then one day the words “Texas v. Pennsylvania” will resonate as a battle cry of freedom just as loudly as “Remember the Alamo!”
Late Monday night, Texas filed suit against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin for their unconstitutional administration of the 2020 presidential election.
Here, as cited in the 154-page complaint, is the gist of the matter:
As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States:
Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.
All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.
While other lawsuits have substantive validity, they must wind their way through the lower courts to reach the Supreme Court, and might be stalled till after Inauguration Day, which could result in them being declared moot.
This new lawsuit on the other hand is brought by one state directly against others in a matter that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court.
The question of standing should not come up. Texas is one of the participants in the compact called the Constitution. They should have a right to demand that the rules be followed. Texans have a proud history of defending their rights, including at the Battle of the Alamo. Although the odds were long in that fight, they never flinched or fled, but fought to the last man.
So should it be this year. Don’t give up the fight!
READ MY PRO-TRUMP BOOKS
Heartland Diary is solely operated by Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Montana. If you enjoy reading these daily essays, I hope you will SUBSCRIBE to www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com by leaving your email address on the home page. Also please consider purchasing one of my books. They are available through the following Amazon links. My new book is “How We Got Here: The Left’s Assault on the Constitution” and is now available in paperback and as an eBook. It is 536 pages long and chock full of research on the progressive movement and the patriotic heroes who have fought against it. My earlier books include “The Media Matrix: What if everything you know is fake?” and the “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy. Part 1 is subtitled “Bush’s Global Failure: Half Right.” Part 2 is “Obama’s Fundamental Transformation: Far Left.” Part 3 is “Trump’s American Vision: Just Right.” As an Amazon Associate, I may earn referral fees for qualifying purchases through links on my website. Also please subscribe to Heartland Diary on YouTube by clicking here for News Every Conservative Can Use.