A little known clause of the Constitution has a huge bearing on the Texas election lawsuit

American Thinker ^ | 11 Dec, 2020 | James V. DeLong

[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.

[foreverfree]

bump

[katieanna]

Correct. Each state is the reference. For this reason, in my view, arguments against the EC are not valid because it does guarantee that the winner of the popular vote in each state gets the votes.

[Liz]

Thanks to conniving, thieving Democraps, the 2020 election is the antithesis of a constitutionally guaranteed
"republican form of government" in which no one can be declared elected, unless he receives a majority or a
plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.

The Biden voters were either (A) dead, (b) products of algorithms, or (C) paper forms from a Chinese print shop submitted as "voters."

A small, VERY small, group of Democrats in each of the Defendant States
connived, colluded and conspired to make it look like Biden and the Biden Crime Family won.

[NewJerseyJoe]

There is no such thing as “popular votes” in regard to a presidential election. Only the electoral votes of each state — and, as we know from the Constitution, the votes of the people are NOT the only way for states to choose electors.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

plurality of the legal votes cast

[unlearner]

“Its a basis for the executive branch to invoke the Insurrection Act and have the military conduct a new election in the Swing States.”

Any “new” election would be outside the scope of the presidential election. There are two remedies: legislatures of states where elections were conducted illegally must vote on electors in time to award one candidate the absolute majority of electoral votes, or the House of Representatives (with one vote per state) elects the President from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

There will be no do-overs. Otherwise, we are simply forming a new government from scratch, which is what happens in a revolution.

[NewJerseyJoe]

>> the winner of the popular vote in each state gets the votes

Not always. The Constitution makes provision for each state's legislature to choose electors.

[shotgun]

One of the “defendant” states AG in their filing to SCOTUS claimed that what Texas was doing would harm our “constitutional democracy”

[ReelectTrump2020]

Leftist counterargument:

The constitution is evil because it was written by a bunch of dead white men. We must instead apply the “living constitution.” We need more Democracy so let the unelected judges apply the “living constitution” to overturn the will of the people. It’s all the fault of the electoral college anyway. Russia!

[Ancesthntr]

Ratcliffe is supposed to release a report regarding foreign (Chinese) influence on our elections tomorrow. Interesting timing...maybe Ruby and a bunch of others get woken up tomorrow or Sunday morning by US Marshals pounding on their doors?

[Ancesthntr]

Uh, Ratcliffe is the DNI. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence

He isn’t the moron/turncoat GA Secretary of State.

[litehaus]

First - Kill all the lawyers !

Whoo said dat !!!

[TheConservativeBanker]

You are probably thinking of Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State. He entered into the consent agreement with Abrams. John Ratcliffe is Director of National Intelligence and a genuine Trump ally. I suspect Ratcliffe is waiting for the order from Trump.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

Thanks for posting. I suppose less than 0.1% of the population knows that clause is in our Constitution. I sure didn’t.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Thanks for posting. I suppose less than 0.1% of the population knows that clause is in our Constitution. I sure didn’t.

I did, but it never occurred to me in this context. Verry interesting!