Supreme Court Rules Securing Elections Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional.

Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution.

"Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?"

Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections."

The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud.

At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional.

Thank you for referencing that article DFG.

Supreme Court Rules Securing Elections Unconstitutional

Thanks to Babylon Bee appreciated sarcasm, we're at least seeing the compromised (imo) Supremes remain disturbingly silent about Section 2 of the 14th Amendment before an election instead of after an election like we saw in 2020 elections, Section 2 a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred.

In fact, 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.

Additionally, unlike 2020 elections when swing states got a free pass concerning their alleged ballot box fraud, we also have some hope that the Trump Administration will use its Section 2 oversight power to discourage elite, desperate Democrats and RINOs from stealing 2026 midterm elections.

DOJ Warns States of Potential Criminal Penalties Over Noncitizen Voting Enforcement

Also consider that the 20th Amendment (20A) suspiciously (imo) moved the day that a new president takes office from early March to last half January, giving less time for Section 2 election integrity protections to be considered.

In fact, noting that parts of the Constitution could have been better written, it is nonetheless disturbing that an argument for the FDR era 20A was to get rid of "lame duck" time for the peacetime, constitutionally limited power (hint) Congress, the Constitution's drafters requiring Congress to meet only once a year.

Excerpted from 20A:

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.