We are all participants and beneficiaries of this wonderful Republic known as the United States of America. Regardless of political affiliation, we all share the deep conviction that our vote must be safeguarded and it must count because it is sacrosanct. The presidential election on November 3, and its aftermath, have raised very serious concerns about the integrity of the voting process. We need to allow all the time needed in order to cleanse the voting process through legal means so that confidence in election results and processes may be restored.
The press conference with Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis on November 19 has demonstrated that there is plenty of evidence of fraud, obstruction of election laws, and corruption of the voting process. Though the press conference was titled “paths to victory” Rudy, Sidney, and Jenna did not fully spell out their case. So, let us complete the argument that they began to make on November 19.
1. The path to victory will be achieved by bringing the whole election before the United States Supreme Court.
2. The path to get to SCOTUS must go through, first, federal district courts where points and facts concerning the irregularities must be established, and second through US Federal Appeals Courts which have jurisdiction over questions of law. The final step will be the US supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over legal matters that affect, or are affected by, the US Constitution. Only the Supreme Court has the power to reverse an election result for constitutional reasons, or to cancel the result of the election because of constitutional reasons, or to order a suitable remedy to correct the irregularities committed on November 3 and thereafter.
3. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is going to be the pivotal means by which this election result will be canceled, reversed, or otherwise corrected by the Supreme Court.
Contrary to what is alleged by the Democratic party and their co-conspirators in the media, there is already plenty of “evidenceâ€ of fraud, corruption, and violation of the constitutional rights of US citizens. Sworn affidavits are indeed evidence in a court of law; and apparently, the President’s team have already collected more than 900 affidavits testifying to fraud and irregularities in at least six states. In addition, I fully expect that further evidence will soon be presented concerning voting machine and software interference. I am somewhat reelecting to say this because at the press conference on November 19, Sidney Powell referred to the seizure of the main servers in Germany that belongs to either the Dominion voting systems or Scytl. However, she said she was not sure if this was in the “good guysâ€ hands or in the “bad guysâ€ hands.
Quick custody of servers and any other computer hardware which can demonstrate interference with vote-counting is a very important additional element of the President’s case. States where voting irregularities took place must first rule on those irregularities and establish the evidence being presented by the President’s team as fact. The Democrats are then going to appeal those decisions. Appeals could be heard both by local courts in each of the States where voting irregularities took place and are first going to have to rule that the evidence presented by the President is now officially fact according to a court of law.
If this scenario happens, then the Democrats will surely appeal the findings of the local, federal or state courts, by presenting opposing legal arguments. Such appeals should be heard on an expedited basis because so much is at stake. If there is any obstruction by the Democrats and an effort to delay those appeals, then the President’s team could appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court, requesting an order for expedited hearings. I fully expect that the Democrats will use the appeal process to its full extent. These various cases arising out of the six or seven “battlegroundâ€ states will then inevitably rise to the United States Supreme Court. I believe there is a good chance that they will all be consolidated into one case, revolving around the violation of the constitutional rights of US citizens under the 14th amendment.
About the 14th amendment:
The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 and introduced, for the first time, the concept that each American holds two citizenships: the citizenship of the state in which he or she resides, and the US citizenship. It then goes on to say that the rights of each US citizens may not be abridged or violated by any local state law or regulation. Evidently, the right of each one of us as US citizens to vote in a federal election through clean, non-fraudulent, and non-interfering procedures is a right that is covered under the 14th amendment.
This is the most pertinent section of the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
It is clear that the “equal protection of the law” clause of the 14th amendment has been violated in many of the battleground States.
Specifically, there is no “equal protection of the law” when a person’s vote in a national election can be altered, or when one person’s ID is required in one state or one county, but not in another, or when a person voting by mail is not required to present an ID while another person voting in person is required to present an ID, or when a person voting in person could only vote till 8 PM on election day in many states while a person voting by mail could have his ballot accepted daysâ€”or even a weekâ€”after the election on November 3. “Over-votingâ€ also diminishes the equal protection under the law guarantee of the US Constitution.
Over-voting occurs when the total number of votes cast in any county exceeds the number of voters who are registered to vote in that county. It results from extraneous people coming into the county with ballots that they have received, or that have been passed to them. In many cases, these are mail-in ballots of questionable origin. Over-voting diminishes the mandate of “one man, one vote”, that is guaranteed under the Constitution by giving more votes to people who are not entitled to them. According to the press conference yesterday, Mr. Giuliani stated that over-voting, at 300% the number of registered voters, had occurred in certain precincts in Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.â€‹
Such gross practices of fraud and corruption destroy the principle of “equal protection of the lawâ€ enshrined in the Constitution. Although the US Constitution specifies in Article 2, Section 1 that the legislatures of the states will specify the manner in which the electors of the electoral college will be elected, the individual state legislatures may not do so in violation of the 14th amendment or of any other provision of the United States Constitution. In other words, state legislatures are not free to play hard and loose with the right of every US citizen to have equal protection under the law. What President Trump’s allies are doing now is long overdue and absolutely necessary because we need equal standards applied, uniformly applied, in each and every state of the United States in order to ensure our “equal protection.â€
Even if this election is decided against President Trump after all of the legal disputes have been resolved, he still will have done our nation a very valuable service by focusing attention on the necessity of having clean elections with uniform standards for voting for candidates for national office. To amplify everyone’s understanding of the importance of the 14th amendment, let me add that the Supreme Court has repeatedly used the provisions of the 14th amendment to impose abortion and gay marriage on all states, with the rationale that these are two essential rights of US citizens.
A further argument to be made here by the president’s team is that certain states violated their own laws in the context of the presidential election. For example, Wisconsin’s law demands that mail in ballots could only be sent to persons who filled out and signed the necessary application form. Rudy informed us on November 19 that some 60,000 ballots have been cast in Wisconsin and that his team had determined that they had no application forms for those ballots. On November 18, Rudy’s team demanded an official recount by the State of Wisconsin. They were then told that such a recount carries a substantial cost, and that they must refund Wisconsin $3 million for such a recount. The money was sent by the President’s campaign to Wisconsin on November 18. Apparently on the evening of November 18 and after receiving the $3 million, the state electoral board met and adopted a new resolution stating that inquiring parties were not entitled to see the application form according to an earlier decision of the state legislature. Clearly, this resolution adopted by the Wisconsin electoral board on the evening of November 18 is unconstitutional and must be struck down by the Supreme Court, because it was not adopted by the Wisconsin State legislature.
Similarly, the Pennsylvania State legislature had adopted rules and regulations for the presidential election that all ballots must be received by 8 PM on election day. However, the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania subsequently and without the approval of the State legislature, which is Republican controlled, adopted a rule that ballots could be received and counted, up to three days after the election. Once again, clearly this rule promulgated by the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania is unconstitutional and must be struck down by the United States Supreme Court.
Potential Legal Remedies from SCOTUS
When the Supreme Court reaches the conclusion that the constitutional rights of US citizens in various battleground states were violated in connection with the presidential election (a decision that should be inevitable), it must then focus on what possible “remedies” it must order. Remedies can include invalidating the entire election results in particular counties or even states, invalidating votes that were received late in the case of Pennsylvania or invalidating votes that were not accompanied by application forms in the case of Wisconsin, and invalidating votes in other states which were received and counted in violation of state or federal law. Another possible remedy that the Supreme Court could order is a “revoltâ€ in the affected counties or states. Seen within the context of the enormity of the irregularities committed in various counties and in various states in the presidential election, SCOTUS has, I believe, the authority to even postpone the meeting of the Electoral College in order to assure that the voting processes followed are clean and legal. The question here is whether the Supreme Court will stand up and perform its historical duty in this matter.
I have heard from some sources that Republican lawyers fear that bringing such a case to the Supreme Court will be dead on arrival. Yet, it is their duty to bring it to the Supreme Court. Only then can the Court make the historical, and necessary, decisions to cleanse the process. The Supreme Court will then have a decision to make: will it perform its constitutional duty, or will it go the way of the Supreme Court in 1857 and its infamous decision in the Dred Scott case? As you may recall, SCOTUS decided in the Dred Scott case that no African American could ever hold US citizenship. The Supreme Court was composed, at the time, principally by slave owners and justices who were very sympathetic to slavery. When Lincoln became president he openly defied the Dred Scott case, and publicly announced that any African Americans who managed to escape their owners and make it onto federal lands, whether it was the District of Columbia or a federal national park, would be immediately granted their freedom by the federal government. So, moving forward to the present time, our Supreme Court is going to have to decide whether it will stand on the ground of the United States Constitution or go down in history as a second “Dred Scott” Supreme Court. There are no gray areas in this situation.