American Conservatism in the 21st Century

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » December 21, 2021, 9:33 am

* * *

18 Days 1,355 Views

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/1 ... ian-state/
America Must Decide – Will It Be a Constitutional Republic or a One-Party Totalitarian State?
The United States is no longer a constitutional republic.

It is a nation in the final transition to a one-party totalitarian state, modeled after the People’s Republic of China with whom those controlling the U.S. government are colluding.

Patriotic Americans must now recognize that the federal government, as an institution, is hopelessly corrupt, that, even though we have elections, we do not have Congressional representation, and that the country is governed by a two-tiered justice system, not determined by the rule of law, but by one’s power, wealth and political beliefs.

The erosion of the Constitution and the theft of our Constitutional rights have been happening incrementally and quietly over a long period of time.


Under Barack Obama and with the tacit approval of the Republican Party, those efforts accelerated, when he delivered on his promise to fundamentally transform the United States, stealthily, into a one-party totalitarian state.

The election of Donald Trump temporarily delayed the destruction of our constitutional republic and publicly exposed the bipartisan establishment’s intent to do so.

According to Angelo Codevilla, the United States already has a bona fide ruling class that transcends government, a political aristocracy that sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, now, any civil right to do so.

Republican leaders neither contest that view nor vilify their Democrat counterparts because they do not want to challenge the ruling class, they want to be part of it. The GOP leadership has gradually solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the views of its voters, the Republican Party has made political orphans of millions of Americans.

No matter how idealistic the foundations of the United States are or how honorable its previous history, the accumulation of excessive power in the federal government has transformed it into a dysfunctional super-state dedicated to maintaining its own power, operating completely outside of Constitutional constraints and accountability to the American people.

As noted by Jim Garrison, when a government is ruled by men unconstrained by law, there are few things that power cannot do. It can make political allies rich or political enemies paupers. It can waste billions of dollars without accountability and destroy an economy without responsibility. It can make incompetent men high officials or make extraordinary men corpses.

The globalists who control the U.S. government, whether from the inside or the outside, are philosophically and financially allied with and seeking the same outcome as the Chinese Communist Party, state capitalism and totalitarianism.

They see the United States, not as a nation, but as land and people to exploit to increase their own personal power and profit.

Patriotic Americans agree that Joe Biden is a usurper, who attained power in a fraudulent election.

Americans who want freedom and justice believe the federal government must alter or discontinue its destructive policies.

In 1858, just three years before being elected the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln said:

“I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free…that a house divided against itself cannot stand…I do not expect the Union to be dissolved… I do not expect the house to fall… but I do expect it will cease to be divided… it will become all one thing or all the other.”

We are now at a similar crossroads in our history.

Image


* * *


"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » December 30, 2021, 6:22 am

* * *

19 Days 1,577 Views

https://justthenews.com/government/secu ... onal-guard
More governors rally to resist Pentagon vaccine mandate over National Guard troops

States' Rights in action again vs an over-reaching unconstitutional action by the federal government.
Republican governors increasingly are resisting a Pentagon-issued COVID-19 vaccine mandate that seven state leaders now say cannot be imposed on their National Guard troops.
It has already resulted in the creation of a State Militia in Oklahoma. Florida is considering a similar move. Texas, Iowa, Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma are the 7 states so far.

* * *
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Khun Paul
udonmap.com
Posts: 7743
Joined: September 16, 2008, 3:28 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Khun Paul » December 30, 2021, 3:14 pm

Declan MacPherson wrote:
December 30, 2021, 6:22 am
* * *

19 Days 1,577 Views

https://justthenews.com/government/secu ... onal-guard
More governors rally to resist Pentagon vaccine mandate over National Guard troops

States' Rights in action again vs an over-reaching unconstitutional action by the federal government.
Republican governors increasingly are resisting a Pentagon-issued COVID-19 vaccine mandate that seven state leaders now say cannot be imposed on their National Guard troops.
It has already resulted in the creation of a State Militia in Oklahoma. Florida is considering a similar move. Texas, Iowa, Alaska, Mississippi, Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma are the 7 states so far.

* * *
You have got to love the American mindset, a UNITED States BUIT only when it suits them............................ha ha ha

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » December 30, 2021, 4:01 pm

Khun Paul wrote:
December 30, 2021, 3:14 pm

You have got to love the American mindset, a UNITED States BUIT only when it suits them............................ha ha ha
It is not unusual for many people (including some Americans) to not understand a federal republic and how the separation of powers are accommodated. Enumerated powers are limited to the federal government. All other powers belong to the states and to the people.

Americans learned of the dangers of an all-powerful omnipotent oppressive tyranny from Great Britain. It is why they rebelled and were determined not to create a similar situation for themselves with a federal government having too much power.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Laan Yaa Mo
udonmap.com
Posts: 9192
Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
Location: ขอนแก่น

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Laan Yaa Mo » December 31, 2021, 9:32 am

Declan MacPherson wrote:
December 30, 2021, 4:01 pm
Khun Paul wrote:
December 30, 2021, 3:14 pm

You have got to love the American mindset, a UNITED States BUIT only when it suits them............................ha ha ha
It is not unusual for many people (including some Americans) to not understand a federal republic and how the separation of powers are accommodated. Enumerated powers are limited to the federal government. All other powers belong to the states and to the people.

Americans learned of the dangers of an all-powerful omnipotent oppressive tyranny from Great Britain. It is why they rebelled and were determined not to create a similar situation for themselves with a federal government having too much power.
It didn't do the Confederacy much good to act on limiting federal power and ensuring states were able to rebel against an overreaching central government.
You only pass through this life once, you don't come back for an encore.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » December 31, 2021, 10:34 am

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:
December 31, 2021, 9:32 am
It didn't do the Confederacy much good to act on limiting federal power and ensuring states were able to rebel against an overreaching central government.
The Civil War was fought over secession.

Democrat slave states were successful throughout the court system (all levels) in maintaining their ability to hold slaves along with many other states' rights issues. Had the South continued in that vein without attempting to secede, they would have probably endured for decades longer in their right to hold slaves.

Lincoln was fighting to preserve the Union and against secession of the slave states, not against a states' right to hold slaves (until he realized that he could use freeing slaves as a motivation to enlist more Union forces and give those same Union forces a reason to fight). In fact, at the outset of the conflict, Lincoln said that he did not care if the war freed even one slave.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
- Abraham Lincoln

Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in the South. Not slaves in the Border States or the North. So Lincoln was on offense using information warfare (and enlisting Black soldiers) at the same time as fighting a hot war.

The South's losing of the war and further subjugation under the Union's Reconstruction efforts prevented slavery from recurring in the South until the passage of the 13th Amendment and later ratification on December 6, 1865.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Laan Yaa Mo
udonmap.com
Posts: 9192
Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
Location: ขอนแก่น

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Laan Yaa Mo » December 31, 2021, 10:40 am

Thanks. I knew that Lincoln did not free the slaves in Kentucky, West Virginia, and maybe Maryland (I have forgotten). I realise that blacks did join the Union Army and fight against the South. Confederate officers did not like surrendering and being turned over to a black company of soldiers.
You only pass through this life once, you don't come back for an encore.

User avatar
Earnest
udonmap.com
Posts: 4331
Joined: January 14, 2014, 3:56 am

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Earnest » January 1, 2022, 5:07 pm

I didn't know slaves were being kept in the North during the Civil War.
This message has been submitted successfully, but it will need to be approved by a moderator before it is publicly viewable. You will be notified when your post has been approved.

User avatar
Laan Yaa Mo
udonmap.com
Posts: 9192
Joined: February 7, 2007, 9:12 am
Location: ขอนแก่น

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Laan Yaa Mo » January 1, 2022, 10:04 pm

Kentucky and West Virginia were border states, and could have joined the Confederacy. To help prevent this from happening Lincoln did not free the slaves in those states to maintain their loyalty to the Union.

Also, some of the 'civilised' tribes, such as the the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw had black slaves. I think the Commanche had some too.
You only pass through this life once, you don't come back for an encore.

User avatar
FrazeeDK
udonmap.com
Posts: 4910
Joined: February 13, 2006, 2:02 am
Location: Udon Thani Thailand

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by FrazeeDK » January 2, 2022, 10:40 am

slavery was abolished in the northern States prior to the civil war.. Maryland and Delaware although not seceding wree southern slave holding states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_sta ... ree_states
Dave

ladda3904
udonmap.com
Posts: 196
Joined: July 10, 2006, 11:14 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by ladda3904 » January 2, 2022, 4:22 pm

West Virginia had been part of Virginia. In 1861 a constitution for WV was ratified by voters. In 1863 WV was admitted as a state.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 3, 2022, 8:26 am

* * *

https://thebluestateconservative.com/20 ... c-in-2022/
Six Reasons For Conservatives To Be Optimistic In 2022
#6: America’s cultural ‘center’ is shifting to the right.

#5: People are waking up to the left’s lies, particularly the gigantic Covid con.

#4: The Judicial Branch of government is serving as an effective bulwark against leftist tyranny from the other two branches.

#3: We are entering an election year.

#2: Young conservatives in government far outshine young leftists; our future is bright.

#1: Because what other choice do we have?
The world is falling apart, democracies the world over have turned to despotism, and America is once more the last bastion of freedom. Despite what we’re going through, we still have the most economic and individual liberty out there. The plus side is that putting the right people in place of government can help us gain even more. We started by saying the tide was turning. That might be pointing out the obvious, but it’s a powerful reminder that we are not alone. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of Americans still yearn for the values of limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedoms. Perhaps we took America for granted for too long. Now that we see what we’re up against, the fight can begin anew.
* * *

"Officially" slavery was ended in the North before the Civil War began through various laws passed in individual northern states, but slaves still existed there under the radar and due to lack of enforcement (mainly as house servants and other discreet jobs hidden from view). Even though there were laws against it, in "actuality", the last state to enforce abolition in the North was New Jersey in 1865 (the year the war ended and the 13th Amendment ratified). The Black population in New Jersey at the time was one of the highest in northern states at 3.76%.

Slavery was an extremely expensive undertaking and a cash business. It was common for a dollar a day to be the going wage for working Americans in most jobs. From inheritance records on file in courthouses in the South, it was not unusual to find a single slave's value being $400 and up. That is more than a year's wages for a working American. As a result, 93%+ of Americans did NOT own slaves, and it was even more rare in northern states.

* * *
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 6, 2022, 7:43 am

* * *

Federal overreach by Joebama is causing states to reclaim their states' rights in many areas, and it causing the extinction of the National Guard in Republican states. State Militias will give more control over this body. Oklahoma has already made the conversion. They have a state militia now.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... der-chief/
Texas Gov. Abbott Sues Biden Over Military Vaccine Mandate, Tells His National Guard Biden is Not Their Commander-in-Chief
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has sued President Biden over the administration’s military vaccine mandate, citing the governor’s authority ‘as commander-in-chief and on Texas’s sovereignty.’

Abbott filed suit Tuesday in Texas, asking a federal judge to overturn Biden’s vaccine requirement, in a filing that repeatedly invokes Abbott’s own authority as commander of chief of the guard, which is subject to complex jurisdiction.

Under overlapping statutes, state national guards remain under the command of governors except when they are called up for federal by the president. Title 10 of the U.S. Code applies to active duty military, while Title 32 applies to the Guard.

‘Defendants’ intrusion into the discretion and scope of Title 32 commanders is contrary to the balance of power between federal and state officials set out by the U.S. Constitution and federal law,’ Abbott argues in the suit, which names Biden in his professional capacity.

‘It is unlawful for Defendants to attempt to override the Governor’s authority to govern his troops, and then leave him to deal with the harms that they leave in their wake,’ according to the suit.

The suit cites the Texas state constitution, and claims the defendants’ actions ‘directly infringe on Governor Abbott’s authority as commander-in-chief and on Texas’s sovereignty, and so harm Governor Abbott and Texas.’
Conservatives in the 21st Century applaud this action vigorously.

* * *
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 7:55 am

* * *

A legal opinion regarding the decertifying of an election by state legislatures and recalling electors.

This is a perfect example of the separation of powers and states’ rights as they apply in the 9th and 10th and 12th Amendments to the Constitution.

It should not come as any surprise that legal analysts, who appear as guests on CNN and MSNBC and in the New York Times and Washington Post (that conspired with a corrupt FBI and DOJ over the last 6 years) will claim that there is no legal remedy for decertifying an election. They base this on an idea that there is no enumerated power for the states to do it; but the reason it can and may be done is just the opposite. All powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and to the people. It is grounded in the 9th and 10th Amendments and that principle has been upheld in numerous federal court cases before 2022.


Can a State Legislature recall the state electors to decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election? The Answer is "Yes."

"Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the new general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors; but has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 380 (1890).

The United States Supreme Court opinions discussed herein are based on the overarching principles that the Constitution reserves to the national government only those expressly enumerated powers in Article I. All other powers not specifically reserved are delegated to the states and to the People. Indeed, "[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State." See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 848 (1995).

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment work in tandem to consecrate this broad delegation of power to the states. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. _____, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324-25 (2020) "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States fr om taking away presidential electors' voting discretion." Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee – and the state voters' choice – for President.

The Constitution is "barebones about electors." Id. As it should be. The residual powers are left to the states. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives. There are no restrictions or limitations.

The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. "Appointments and procedures and . . . that is all." Chiafolo, supra at 2315.

In prior cases, the Court has stated that Article II, §1's appointments power gives the States full authority over presidential electors , absent some other constitutional constraint. The Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination . . . " McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892). See also Chiafalo, supra at 2324.

It would be meaningless if after giving full authority to the States over presidential electors, the state legislature could not, upon a proper showing, recall those electors to decertify a fraudulent election. As the Supreme Court said in Chiafolo, supra, the State has full authority absent some other constitutional constraint.

As far as the national government (and Constitution) is concerned, i.e., federal law, there are no such constraints. "Congress . . . has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, supra at 380. Therefore, each state Legislature has the power to recall electors and decertify their vote upon demonstrable proof of fraud. Indeed, this is the only way the state can guarantee that the People are represented. The Federal Government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. 316 (1819). "[T]he powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," while those that belong to the States "remain . . . numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Thus, "[w]here the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power[,] that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication," the power is "either delegated to the state government or retained by the people." See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee , 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (stating that the Federal Government's powers under the Constitution must be "expressly given, or given by necessary implication").

For an added measure of assurance in the latter regard, it is declared that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." U.S. Const., amend. IX (emphasis added). It was universally agreed by the Framers that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. "The [Ninth] Amendment . . . was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834). See also II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891), pp. 626-627. As "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect . . . effect should be given to all the words it uses." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803). See also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 229 (1926). And, indeed, a right to political affiliation and political choice has been addressed as protected, at least in part, by this amendment. United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947). This includes, of course, the fundamental right to vote. Id. See also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560 (1964).

That the latter is the fundamental and primary right among all other fundamental rights, enumerated or not, is evident in the fact it is self-executing. Infringement upon it cannot occur under the Constitution if the government is, in fact, one that is duly and legally chosen by the People. Any government that asserts a mandate to rule on the basis of fraud or illegality effectuates an instant infringement on the sovereign's will, of necessity, has no legitimacy. It is as violent a usurpation as would be the direct use of force to suppress the People. Only, it is more sinister and insidious.

It is at once an uncontestable rejection of the values and ideals of the People and a silent assassination of their collective right to express them.

To countenance a fraudulent election is to deny the inherent sovereignty retained by the People to govern themselves.
To allow one such as this to pass as valid with the level of skullduggery and fraud evident to everyone who cares to look and who is not blinded by the conspired obfuscation foist upon them by bureaucratic functionaries, technocrats, subversives in both political parties, and their corporate and foreign donors, and those who control, to the great detriment of public debate and discourse, the information from social media all the way to the transmission of the "news" to households across the nation, is to leave the sovereign citizens of this country little choice. Ignoring this treasonous crime destroys any remnants of faith in the proper and orderly functioning of a government that is supposed to serve them.

If the choice of the People has been adulterated by fraud, they have a right, an obligation, and, indeed, a duty to call it out to ensure preservation of the Republic that is guaranteed to them by the Constitution; or indeed, to dissolve and abolish it altogether. The Declaration of Independence, Second Paragraph (July 4, 1776). Indeed, the Behringer Memo suggests that fraud must be ignored and the Republic destroyed if such fraud is not discovered prior to January 6. Such a conclusion ignores the principles of the Founders and precedent of federal law as described herein.

Preservation of the Republic can be done by legislative decertification under the principle of the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the broad discretion states have over electors. The state constitutions give broad authority to the People to recall all publicly elected officials. Of course, this extends to any public official charged with a duty to represent their will. And, this must be done, for under the Ninth Amendment, if the fundamental right to vote is to be protected, every illegally cast or counted vote must not be allowed to unconstitutionally disenfranchise the legal voter's fundamental, constitutional rights.

These rights that reside in the People are necessarily delegated to the state Legislature in the event that the latter must act sua sponte to correct a fraudulently held election. After all, the Legislature is the lawmaking authority in the state. Absent any restraints in the state or federal constitution, it must act in the stead of the people where there is no actuating power given to the People under state law. In other words, the Legislature itself does not have to pass a state law to exercise its constitutional (both state and federal) authority.

A legislature's determination to decertify the votes cast by the electors or to otherwise decertify an election on demonstration of fraud in the election itself is nothing more than the Legislature's use of its reserved sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment to protect those fundamental rights and privileges reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment.

Indeed, the failure to do so would be a violation of the Legislature's role as a co-equal branch of government.



* * *
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 17221
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: Down two...then left

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by tamada » January 8, 2022, 8:27 am

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 6, 2022, 7:43 am
* * *

Federal overreach by Joebama is causing states to reclaim their states' rights in many areas, and it causing the extinction of the National Guard in Republican states. State Militias will give more control over this body. Oklahoma has already made the conversion. They have a state militia now.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... der-chief/
Texas Gov. Abbott Sues Biden Over Military Vaccine Mandate, Tells His National Guard Biden is Not Their Commander-in-Chief
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has sued President Biden over the administration’s military vaccine mandate, citing the governor’s authority ‘as commander-in-chief and on Texas’s sovereignty.’

Abbott filed suit Tuesday in Texas, asking a federal judge to overturn Biden’s vaccine requirement, in a filing that repeatedly invokes Abbott’s own authority as commander of chief of the guard, which is subject to complex jurisdiction.

Under overlapping statutes, state national guards remain under the command of governors except when they are called up for federal by the president. Title 10 of the U.S. Code applies to active duty military, while Title 32 applies to the Guard.

‘Defendants’ intrusion into the discretion and scope of Title 32 commanders is contrary to the balance of power between federal and state officials set out by the U.S. Constitution and federal law,’ Abbott argues in the suit, which names Biden in his professional capacity.

‘It is unlawful for Defendants to attempt to override the Governor’s authority to govern his troops, and then leave him to deal with the harms that they leave in their wake,’ according to the suit.

The suit cites the Texas state constitution, and claims the defendants’ actions ‘directly infringe on Governor Abbott’s authority as commander-in-chief and on Texas’s sovereignty, and so harm Governor Abbott and Texas.’
Conservatives in the 21st Century applaud this action vigorously.

* * *
Or, in not so many words, Abbott's telling Biden "They're my soldiers and I'm going home."
'Don't waste your words on people who deserve your silence'
~Reinhold Messner~

'You don't have to be afraid of everything you don't understand'
~Louise Perica~

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 17221
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: Down two...then left

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by tamada » January 8, 2022, 8:29 am

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 7:55 am
* * *

A legal opinion regarding the decertifying of an election by state legislatures and recalling electors.

This is a perfect example of the separation of powers and states’ rights as they apply in the 9th and 10th and 12th Amendments to the Constitution.

It should not come as any surprise that legal analysts, who appear as guests on CNN and MSNBC and in the New York Times and Washington Post (that conspired with a corrupt FBI and DOJ over the last 6 years) will claim that there is no legal remedy for decertifying an election. They base this on an idea that there is no enumerated power for the states to do it; but the reason it can and may be done is just the opposite. All powers not granted to the federal government are left to the states and to the people. It is grounded in the 9th and 10th Amendments and that principle has been upheld in numerous federal court cases before 2022.


Can a State Legislature recall the state electors to decertify a national election upon proof of fraud in the election? The Answer is "Yes."

"Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the new general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors; but has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 380 (1890).

The United States Supreme Court opinions discussed herein are based on the overarching principles that the Constitution reserves to the national government only those expressly enumerated powers in Article I. All other powers not specifically reserved are delegated to the states and to the People. Indeed, "[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State." See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 848 (1995).

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment work in tandem to consecrate this broad delegation of power to the states. In Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. _____, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324-25 (2020) "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States fr om taking away presidential electors' voting discretion." Specifically, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee – and the state voters' choice – for President.

The Constitution is "barebones about electors." Id. As it should be. The residual powers are left to the states. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives. There are no restrictions or limitations.

The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. "Appointments and procedures and . . . that is all." Chiafolo, supra at 2315.

In prior cases, the Court has stated that Article II, §1's appointments power gives the States full authority over presidential electors , absent some other constitutional constraint. The Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination . . . " McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27 (1892). See also Chiafalo, supra at 2324.

It would be meaningless if after giving full authority to the States over presidential electors, the state legislature could not, upon a proper showing, recall those electors to decertify a fraudulent election. As the Supreme Court said in Chiafolo, supra, the State has full authority absent some other constitutional constraint.

As far as the national government (and Constitution) is concerned, i.e., federal law, there are no such constraints. "Congress . . . has left these matters to the control of the States." In re Green, supra at 380. Therefore, each state Legislature has the power to recall electors and decertify their vote upon demonstrable proof of fraud. Indeed, this is the only way the state can guarantee that the People are represented. The Federal Government "is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. 316 (1819). "[T]he powers delegated by the . . . Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," while those that belong to the States "remain . . . numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). Thus, "[w]here the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power[,] that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication," the power is "either delegated to the state government or retained by the people." See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee , 14 U.S. 304 (1816) (stating that the Federal Government's powers under the Constitution must be "expressly given, or given by necessary implication").

For an added measure of assurance in the latter regard, it is declared that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." U.S. Const., amend. IX (emphasis added). It was universally agreed by the Framers that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. "The [Ninth] Amendment . . . was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected." I Annals of Congress 439 (Gales and Seaton ed. 1834). See also II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891), pp. 626-627. As "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect . . . effect should be given to all the words it uses." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803). See also Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 229 (1926). And, indeed, a right to political affiliation and political choice has been addressed as protected, at least in part, by this amendment. United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95 (1947). This includes, of course, the fundamental right to vote. Id. See also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560 (1964).

That the latter is the fundamental and primary right among all other fundamental rights, enumerated or not, is evident in the fact it is self-executing. Infringement upon it cannot occur under the Constitution if the government is, in fact, one that is duly and legally chosen by the People. Any government that asserts a mandate to rule on the basis of fraud or illegality effectuates an instant infringement on the sovereign's will, of necessity, has no legitimacy. It is as violent a usurpation as would be the direct use of force to suppress the People. Only, it is more sinister and insidious.

It is at once an uncontestable rejection of the values and ideals of the People and a silent assassination of their collective right to express them.

To countenance a fraudulent election is to deny the inherent sovereignty retained by the People to govern themselves.
To allow one such as this to pass as valid with the level of skullduggery and fraud evident to everyone who cares to look and who is not blinded by the conspired obfuscation foist upon them by bureaucratic functionaries, technocrats, subversives in both political parties, and their corporate and foreign donors, and those who control, to the great detriment of public debate and discourse, the information from social media all the way to the transmission of the "news" to households across the nation, is to leave the sovereign citizens of this country little choice. Ignoring this treasonous crime destroys any remnants of faith in the proper and orderly functioning of a government that is supposed to serve them.

If the choice of the People has been adulterated by fraud, they have a right, an obligation, and, indeed, a duty to call it out to ensure preservation of the Republic that is guaranteed to them by the Constitution; or indeed, to dissolve and abolish it altogether. The Declaration of Independence, Second Paragraph (July 4, 1776). Indeed, the Behringer Memo suggests that fraud must be ignored and the Republic destroyed if such fraud is not discovered prior to January 6. Such a conclusion ignores the principles of the Founders and precedent of federal law as described herein.

Preservation of the Republic can be done by legislative decertification under the principle of the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the broad discretion states have over electors. The state constitutions give broad authority to the People to recall all publicly elected officials. Of course, this extends to any public official charged with a duty to represent their will. And, this must be done, for under the Ninth Amendment, if the fundamental right to vote is to be protected, every illegally cast or counted vote must not be allowed to unconstitutionally disenfranchise the legal voter's fundamental, constitutional rights.

These rights that reside in the People are necessarily delegated to the state Legislature in the event that the latter must act sua sponte to correct a fraudulently held election. After all, the Legislature is the lawmaking authority in the state. Absent any restraints in the state or federal constitution, it must act in the stead of the people where there is no actuating power given to the People under state law. In other words, the Legislature itself does not have to pass a state law to exercise its constitutional (both state and federal) authority.

A legislature's determination to decertify the votes cast by the electors or to otherwise decertify an election on demonstration of fraud in the election itself is nothing more than the Legislature's use of its reserved sovereign powers under the Tenth Amendment to protect those fundamental rights and privileges reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment.

Indeed, the failure to do so would be a violation of the Legislature's role as a co-equal branch of government.



* * *
Good grief! That's an incredibly long "if" for a Saturday morning. No wonder you've been quiet.
'Don't waste your words on people who deserve your silence'
~Reinhold Messner~

'You don't have to be afraid of everything you don't understand'
~Louise Perica~

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16085
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by jackspratt » January 8, 2022, 8:43 am

Declan MacPherson wrote:
January 8, 2022, 7:55 am

A legal opinion regarding the decertifying of an election by state legislatures and recalling electors.
A "legal opinion" without disclosing its source seems pretty worthless to me - after all, it could be your opinion Declan, or even Teacher Dan's.

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 9:02 am

* * *

Some have still not learned the lesson of truth within the document.

The source never matters if the content is true.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 16085
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by jackspratt » January 8, 2022, 9:05 am

Like the Bible, do you mean? ;)

User avatar
Declan MacPherson
udonmap.com
Posts: 1137
Joined: June 2, 2019, 5:59 pm

Re: American Conservatism in the 21st Century

Post by Declan MacPherson » January 8, 2022, 9:47 am

* * *

The source never matters if the content is true; and It is applicable for any document.
"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." - Ephesians 6:11

Post Reply

Return to “U.S. Politics”