Posted on 12/08/2020 5:41:35 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
"This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law..."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I don’t agree. The Civil rights acts of the 1960’s mentioned that people have a right to vote without impediment. Impeding voting, at the time by literacy or violence, is what was intended. However, if you allow election fraud, your impeding voting because it doesn’t matter. The outcome of preventing someone from voting with laws, or allowing someone to break the law, to prevent someone’s 14th Amendment right, is the same.
Every State has a dog in that hunt. So, Texas has a claim.
I don’t think you understand what standing means, and you are conflating the issue of the existence of a right with the question of who may sue to enforce that right. Yes people have certain voting rights guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act and by the Constitution. Yes, a person whose voting rights are violated can sue to vindicate those rights. No, the government of a different state cannot sue to vindicate those rights.
Every state does not “have a dog in that hunt.” Standing requires that the plaintiff have suffered a “legal injury” that is “concrete and particularized”. A “legal injury” is a an “invasion of a legally protected interest that belongs to” the plaintiff, not an interest belonging to someone else. States sometimes have standing to sue to vindicate its own citizens’ rights. They do not have standing to sue to vindicate another states’ citizens’ rights. If the rights of the voters of Pennsylvania and Georgia have been violated, then it is up to them to sue over it, not the government of Texas.
Because of the timing I believe it was a caller on the Mark Levin show recently.
leads to blacks only having 4/5th the vote of say a white person.
Hot dog. Now 7 states together and on SCOTUS Docket!
It does effect Texas, and Texas Citizens.
They are not taxed? I could see your point if they are not obligated by the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce act, and Citizens of Texas did not pay Federal Taxes or Citizens could not be obliged to fight in US conflicts. They have a legally protected interest in a voting system that works.
I like your comment, “Respectfully, I don’t think the analogy of the Voting Rights Act is relevant at all . . .” better than my earlier comment which began “No analogy is ever exact . . .” Your argument about the analogy is just better.
On the larger issue, I argue states do have a constitutional right to equal protection. If you can’t find it elsewhere look right next to the recognized constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to an abortion, the right to free health care, the right not to hear unpopular speech . . .
If the Supreme Court wants to hear this case they will; if they don’t, they won’t.
I don’t know if we want to go down the road of states having “rights.” Governments don’t have rights, they have powers. Individuals have rights. That’s an important distinction.
Fortunately, no court has ever recognized a constitutional right to free health care or not to hear unpopular speech. The right to an abortion is an incorrect application of a right to privacy. I think an individual’s right to privacy is correctly inferred from the 4th and 9th amendments—a prohibition against unreasonable searches doesn’t make much sense if there is no right to privacy. But to infer a right to abortion from a right to privacy is, of course, insane.
Correct that if the Supreme Court wants to hear this case, they will, and if they don’t, they won’t. The Supreme Court has, in practice, behaved as though they have discretion as to whether to hear suits over which they have original jurisdiction. As Thomas and Alito pointed out in a dissent or concurrence a few years ago, this is incorrect—in the Anglo-American tradition, courts are obligated to hear suits that are filed and are within their jurisdiction.
However, I think the correct thing for the Supreme Court to do under the Constitution is to hear the case but dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because the states lack standing. As much as I would like to see Trump re-elected, the Constitution is more important, and the judiciary has already grabbed too much power by ignoring standing.
Texas citizens are taxed, just like everyone. That is exactly the sort of “generalized grievance” that does NOT confer standing. The injury has to be particular to the plaintiff, not one shared by the public at large. Addressing problems that face the public at large is the legislature’s job, not the judiciary’s.
Again, I don’t think you understand the concept of standing. I would suggest some research on it, because I think it is important to an understanding of the limits of judicial power in our system.
“I don’t know if we want to go down the road of states having “rights.” Governments don’t have rights, they have powers.”
At our founding it was viewed differently: “. . . and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
Amazing—I don’t think you could have picked a document that refutes your point more emphatically than that one:
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
People have rights, and create governments to preserve those rights. Governments don’t have rights of their own. The rights of the sovereign was something monarchists believed, not our founders.
” . . . and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
Read it again. For the first time.
I have. You are as mistaken about the point of the Declaration as you are about standing.
“. . . and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
This is not something I invented. The words came directly from the pen of the founding fathers (in the Declaration of Independence.)
And I’m not saying you are a bad person for repudiating what the founding fathers wrote. Many people have, and still do.
I did what you asked and researched “Standing”.
You mention taxation as a general grievance. However, you failed to mention that with Taxation their is redistribution of money. IE, The Executive redistributes money via multiple funds to states by various programs and initiatives and contracts. That redistribution process is NOT general, and it is controlled by the executive. Therefore, states ARE effected by who is POTUS, and this is undeniable. If states are directly effected by the re-distribution of tax money and programs, then so are it’s citizens.
An example. New York, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon will be looking for financial relief, via the Federal government, for the riots initiated by politicians. Yes, the DOJ has already made a statement that these can be traced to politicians and parties. Biden, by executive order, could financially compensate those areas who ‘allowed’ the destruction for political means.
Therefore, in election fraud, when it pertains to the POTUS, those States who enforced the law, followed the law, are deprived of funds and re-distribution by those who pulled political stunts. That is not arbitrary, it is damage and potential damage, and remedy is to not allow states to violate election laws and profit from it.
Further, if people can be counted as a fractional vote 4/5th for instance, what has changed since the Civil War and the 14th Amendment? A state’s political system can fail, we have seen that in the past, but the SCOTUS must uphold the rights of all Americans. Thus, the Plantiff’s are asking for relief of not only their Citizens, but those in Georgia who have had their rights violated. Can States individually advocate for the 14th Amendment rights of people outside of their state borders, if not who protects them? Do we as a nation accept that the 14th Amendment does not apply if a state decides not to follow legal procedure? Like slavery, everyone is injured by such practices. That is Standing.
Finally, and most importantly, the question to the court is how can you address voter fraud by States, who want to gain political power and money via manipulation. Denying the other States, and not having proper mechanisms in place to timely redress the problem, means accepting voter fraud and destruction of the 14th Amendment for every citizen. I assure you, that this problem will escalate rapidly. States will band together to rig elections, with the help of national enemies, and the nation will rip itself apart to delight of the Chinese, Iranians.
No. I disagree with you because i see Standing and I see already in place Constitutional process to deal with these situations, the 12th Amendment. Standing and Remedy exist. The far bigger danger to the Constitution is to deny based upon standing, to allow peoples 14th Amendment rights to be abridged, people to financially suffer, and States to realize the end around of Voter fraud by a few cities, deprives everyone of a voice.
I understand the ‘Standing’ issue from a legal standpoint, but you can’t have an effective 14th Amendment and Civil rights if Fraud (including a few individuals illegally changing voting laws) is allowed to control the Executive branch.
One more point, I would also state, that if I were on the Supreme Court, and there was multi-state evidence of coordinated subversion of election law, that should invoke the insurrection act.
I'd invite you to read Stevens' opinion in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), as well as Roberts' dissent (joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). That case is a pretty good illustration of where judicial liberals and judicial conservatives are regarding state standing.
Just read it. I am certain from my writing that you have ascertained that I am not a lawyer. I do appreciate you pointing out past decisions about standing.
Standing First. CO2 emissions by anything, including you breathing, can be partially regulated, but not completely. Further, regulating CO2 in the United States does nothing for the biggest producer, China. Finally, we are not sure that CO2 causes global warming (despite what they tell you it could be an effect not the cause although the preponderance of evidence point to it playing a role). Do people of the particular state have the right to regulate CO2 production in their state. I say yes, unless federal (interstate commerce) overrule (EPA). They should have standing there. Can they regulate it in say Texas, I say no. They can’t regulate it in china either.
Here is where I compare scenarios to Voter Fraud.
Can a state sue Texas for illegal pollution that may be effecting a different state? Absolutely, and they have standing if Texas has violated it’s own laws and won’t take action or if they have violated Federal laws. They can be damaged by an illegal act. Therefore, they have standing.
Once you allow Fraud, or illegal acts, that influence the well being of another State, you can seek remedy.
In this election, there was Fraud, or illegal acts, by state’s who did not follow their own laws. The outcome effects other states. Hence, there is Standing. Also, there is a Constitutional remedy. Further, allowing the illegal activity to continue only increases the damage to Citizens in another local.
I don’t see this as “separation of powers”, in that sense, because it spawns from illegal acts that effect other states.
Th CO2 example you point out doesn't have much to do with standing. A state legislature has the power to regulate CO2 generation in its state. Enacting policy such as CO2 regulation is a legislative act. Standing has nothing to do with what a legislature does, because, unlike a court, a legislature makes laws on its own. The legislature does not require a "case or controversy" before it in order to act. The legislature makes laws, and the judiciary decides disputes.
The fact that there is illegal activity does not give a court the power to act. For example, in a criminal case, a court cannot just investigate crimes and punish criminals on its own. It can only do so if a prosecutor, who is part of the executive branch, prosecutes the criminal. That's the whole problem with what Judge Sullivan was doing in the Flynn case--the executive branch no longer wanted to prosecute Flynn and moved to dismiss the case, but Sullivan refused. But he had no business denying the prosecution's motion to dismiss, because the judge has no say in whether the prosecution should actually prosecute a crime.
In a civil case, like this one, there is no prosecution, but instead there's a plaintiff. However, in order to actually invoke the jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff has to have standing, whether that plaintiff is a government or an individual. But regardless of the existence of illegality, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has any power to address it unless someone with an actual legal interest asks it to do so. Texas may be affected by the outcome of the appointment of Pennsylvania's or Georgia's electors, but that is not the same as a legally protected interest. The Pennsylvania and Georgia legislatures have standing and could have sued based on some of these claims, but they chose not to. The Trump Campaign also has standing for some of these claims. They did sue, but they lost all their Pennsylvania cases, which they had to win in order to change the outcome of the election.
You say that other states have standing because they are "affected" by fraud in other states. But, as your research into standing should have revealed, merely being affected by something is not enough to confer standing. There has to be an invasion of a legally protected interest belonging to the plaintiff, the harm has to be "concrete and particularized" and not general, the harm has to be fairly traceable to the defendants, and it has to be redressible by the courts. The outcome of the Presidential election does not affect the State of Texas any differently than it affects anyone else in the country.
You mention the taxation as broad. When I investigated for individuals it was considered broad. However, the never said it didn’t apply to States or groups of states. So, I don’t think the taxation issue is moot for standing. By the way, it’s like 17 states now, that’s a lot of taxpayers, not an individual or even a discrete area as described in the past. Therefore, it’s not small and not important. Further, Federal money is at stake.
The separation of powers is important, but the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Constitutional rights over separation of powers more times than I can count. I don’t want the SCOTUS to intervene on things that can be legislated, if possible, but since Roe v Wade, they have done just that based upon individual rights.
Ultimately, the question remains “Do individuals 14 th amendment rights exist naturally and nationally, and can an individual state or states conspire to remove those rights, and other states seek relief for their citizens?” I say the question has already been historically answered, Texas is just asking it in a unique way.
Remedy is simple and explained in the 12th Amendment. States that violate civil rights and 14th Amendment rights forfeit there electoral college appointments, but still have a process for representation (should no candidate reach 270) via state legislature.
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.