Posted on 12/11/2020 4:39:59 AM PST by MtnClimber
The clause has been mentioned rarely in Supreme Court jurisprudence and is usually consigned to the dead zone of "political questions." But now it's appropriate.
The papers filed by Texas and its allies in Texas v. Pennsylvania do not invoke the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" (Art IV, Sec. 4).
The clause has been mentioned rarely in Supreme Court jurisprudence and is usually consigned to the dead zone of "political questions," which means that it is for the political branches, not the courts to decide what it means.
However, a group of legislators from Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona filed an amicus brief arguing that the clause should be invoked. Defining a "republican form of government" is no more difficult than many other issues the Court has taken on, and it can always piggyback on a 1947 statement by the Supreme Court of Texas that:
It is a fundamental idea in all republican forms of government that no one can be declared elected * * *, unless he * * * receives a majority or a plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.
The clause is well suited to the present situation, in which:
As the facts alleged by the State of Texas demonstrate, the 2020 elections ... represent the antithesis of a republican form of government. An elite group of sitting Democrat officers in each of the Defendant States coordinated with the Democrat party to illegally and unconstitutionally change the rules established by the Legislatures in the Defendant States, thereby depriving the people of their states a free and fair election — the very basis of a republican form of government.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In the upside down world of leftist thinking they may have no concern about clear wording, or even the Constitution anymore.
Need to be very careful with this as the left is going to argue that Biden won the popular vote and thus should win the election. This could be a slippery slope to removing the Electoral College.
Thank you for posting this. I have been asking quite a few attorneys about Article 4 Section 4 for some time. None had a clue if or how it applies. At the most basic level, deliberately fraudulent elections vitiate republican government which the US government has an obligation to guarantee to the states. Any constitutional attorneys here?
COTUS, Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Biden only won the popular ILLEGAL VOTES. Same as Hillary.
We are witnessing the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic.
Either the Supreme Court acts to stem it, or the President must.
Things are getting interesting. Seditionists are declaring themselves.
POTUS is elected by the states, not by citizens’ popular vote.
Electoral college is the first method. We are now looking at the second method.
Its a basis for the executive branch to invoke the Insurrection Act and have the military conduct a new election in the Swing States.
Bump
Ruby and her cohorts were caught on camera and today they are walking around free as a bird.
No. States elect presidents, not individual citizens -- the only "legal votes" defined in the Constitution are the electoral votes of each state.
I'm all for POTUS going nuclear and invoking the Insurrection Act, but before he does that there must be arrests! You can't claim election fraud over literally millions of votes without a single arrest being made.
What is Ratcliffe waiting for? His office surely has all the communication between the conspirators on election night when the counting stopped and the theft began. That is the one thing the Dems keep screaming at us: "Not one single arrest!" They're right!
Ratcliffe needs to release every phone call/text/email between the main conspirators, starting with Eric Coomer and have the military make arrests with them being brought out in handcuffs on prime-time viewing. The FBI is not going to do it. Then Trump can go Insurrection on everything.
“ legal votes”
That is the issue
SCOTUS is not the final option and you will likely see it.
received a majority or a plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.
That's the issue that really gets to me. On the one hand, Leftist judges are always happy to be political activists and legislate from the bench. They make laws or ignore laws as needed in order to accomplish their political agenda.
Our side, however, seems to get bogged down in legal minutiae and technicalities. We sometimes see injustice, but (sadly!) cannot correct the injustice because the wording of the law or existing precedent is just not conducive to a truly Just determination. What a darn shame.
I say the heck with it. People flagrantly break the laws and walk free. Now is not the time to be sticklers. The Supreme Court and/or the state legislatures must jump in to the fight and do what is right and that may require a little less focus on legal arguments.
We would like to avoid the Insurrection Act.
“What is Ratcliffe waiting for?”
He was in on it. He made the illegal deal with Stacey Abrams.
You are correct that we elect the President based on Electoral votes. However, if you count the actual legal popular votes, I think Trump won that too.
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.