2. There was not only fraud, but its process was organized, and probably duplicated nationwide. After the Fraud, there has been a deliberate cover up and attempt to change or delay the narrative from becoming public knowledge. This included elements of the intelligence community, state officials, FBI, and even potentially the speaker of the house. The American public has been completely gaslighted for years about elections.
From a post way back...
Despite the fact that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is a penalty for states where vote-counting fraud has occurred, the compromised Supreme Court wrongly hid behind its constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse (imo) when Texas and other states tried to complain about alleged ballot box tampering in Pennsylvania and other renegade states.
Note the zero tolerance "hair triggers" in that section that the Supremes, Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored imo when lawmakers voted to accept Biden's electoral votes in 2020 despite allegations of vote-counting problems.
is denied to any
or in any way abridged,
Section 2 of 14A: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Apportionment of Representatives]
Section 5 of 14A: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In fact, here's third-party opinion that Section 2 is being ignored.
No serious effort was ever made in Congress to effectuate § 2, and the only judicial attempt was rebuffed.2 , cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870 (1946). —Apportionment Clause
The Section had long been dead. But there are two camps of legal scholars who wish to revive it. The first consists of those who would like to see Section Two enforced to punish states that abridge their citizens’ right to vote, especially in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder. Recently, Joshua Geltzer, the executive director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, added himself to this camp. The second camp is using Section Two, which distinguishes on the basis of gender, as evidence that Section One’s Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit gender-based discrimination. Jonathan Mitchell spearheads this movement. —The Worrisome Ghost of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Second Section
Regarding the wrongly ignored Section 2, Thomas Jefferson had warned against ignoring parts of the Constitution.
The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts. --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445
The Supreme's also ignored their constitutionally enumerated obligations to resolve disputes between the states concerning 2020 elections imo, the Court having original jurisdiction for disputes between the states.
In fact, it so happens that Justice Joseph Story had noted the following about how the original colonies had handled disputes between themselves. The colonies had previously afforded themselves having disputes between themselves heard by the highest authority for any reason whatsoever as a last effort to try to preserve the confederacy. One of the reasons that the drafters of the constitution made 3.2.1 below was to preserve this same right for conflicted states.
Article III, Secion 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
The major constitutional problem with the Supreme Court's “no standing” excuse to Texas in the context of "to Controversies between two or more states" as it concerns allegations of wrongdoing in 2020 elections is this imo. Justice Joseph Story had indicated that the drafters of the Constitution had preserved the right of the original colonies to take other colonies to the highest authority in the land for any complaint whatsoever as a final hope to preserve the confederation.
or any other cause whatsoever
§ 1674. Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [emphasis added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
§ 1675. Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal. —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1659--75, 1684--90, 1692--94
Because the Supremes unconstitutionally looked the other way (imo) when some states cried fowl concerning alleged vote-counting problems in 2020 elections, the Court deserves at least a part of the blame (imo) for the social unrest that is now happening, evidenced for example by resistance to ICE in renegade states.
I agree, based upon history of the Republic, that complaints of State on State were to be granted hearing at the SCOTUS. They denied Texas, because of lack of standing. All States have Standing in a Federal Election, because all the citizens and the Union are at stake. This decision smacked of a coverup from the start, and Roberts will have no credibility if fraud is proven in Georgia.
The FBI and the DOJ can regain trust. I am uncertain where the SCOTUS could go after this, if they ignored their sworn duty and the law.