Replies

Why the Current Administration is Illegitimate and The United Supreme Court Violated Their Oaths

5/7/2021, 8:13:53 PM · 1 of 10
LuciusDomitiusAutelian

The United States Supreme Court violated their oaths by refusing to hear this case. I refer you to Article II, Section 1, second paragraph of the United States Constitution; in particular the word LEGISLATURE. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

In everyone of these states voting changes were made that were made by executive branch bureaucrats and it is all on record.

Legally, this administration is now valid because the USSC broke their oaths. In reality we have an illegitimate Executive Branch and there is no legal recourse. Which is precisely why the founders knew this government would need to be let's say, corrected, and they put that remedy in the top three Amendments to the Constitution known as The Bill of Rights. I'll let you guess which one.

I'm a newbie technically, but I have been lurking since the late 90s. But things have gotten to the point that people need to understand that they no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. You live in a Banana republic.

The fact the USSC turned this case down, and the very clear logic and language of Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2 could be understood by a 6-year-old.

If I have somehow posted this in the wrong place or committed a faux pas here I'm sure I will be reminded. There are as many bureaucrats in the comments section these days as there are in the IRS.

And ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US. - Just to show I have been around here for decades.

***people need to understand that they no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. You live in a Banana republic***

I posted similar when SCOTUS refused to hear the Penn legislative case. When the SCOTUS refuses to hear cases involving clear violations of the Constitution - then there is no longer a separation of powers between three equal branches of govt and therefore SCOTUS is no longer needed --- viz the Constitutional Republic no longer exists.

NOTE that three justices objected to the refusal to hear the Penn case but had no power to overturn the decision for inaction. Who, then, held power at that moment? The answer to that is the answer to many questions.

Thanks for that.
Just guessing that if SCOTUS took those cases, their hands were tied via it specifically being spelled out in Bush v. Gore - hence they don't take the case.

Affirmed 5-4 in Bush v Gore - Equal Protection Clause.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33.

History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.

The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).