Sincerely Independent News & Opinions

cstv donate
For freedom through truth
Search
Filters
Search in the titles
Search in the content of articles

Texas (+17) is suing FOUR States to Supreme Court

Spread the freedom!

Texas has filed suit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The coalition of States is concerned with the election process in the accused States. This trial, according to Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton, has been plagued by "significant and unconstitutional irregularities" that could change the outcome.

Texas relies on Article 28 of US Code Section 1251 (a) stating that the Supreme Court will have 'original and exclusive jurisdiction' in disputes between two or more States.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton writes in the official submission:

"The alleged changes by non-legislative actors to the properly enforced electoral laws of states, contrary to the granting state legislatures of the state with plenary authority over the appointment of presidential electors."

According to the official submission, changes have been made to the election process that have not been implemented by the competent institutions - the State Parliaments. These changes would have been made by the Governors and Secretaries of State of the States.

These changes to the process would be unconstitutional because the Constitution clearly designates State Parliaments as the only body that can make changes to electoral laws and processes.

'Differences in treatment of voters'

The document continues:

"Intrastate differences in voter treatment, with more favorable voter allocations - legal or illegal - in areas governed by local government under democratic control and populations with higher rates of democratic voters than other areas of suspicious states."

The lawsuit accused States of treating different regions differently. This different treatment would work out better for some voters, overwhelmingly Democrat, than the treatment of the other voters.

The irregularities in voting in Parliament would correspond to the unconstitutional relaxation of integrity protections in the voting process and electoral laws of the individual States. These eases would have been implemented for the Coronavirus, but are controversial for various reasons.

For example, you have the postal votes that were allowed by Pennsylvania, while the Pennsylvania Constitution forbids them. Because of this, Pennsylvania tried to include a referendum to the election that would be about a constitutional change to allow for postal votes anyway, but then no postal votes should be used until that change is made. In total, 2.629.183 postal votes were cast in Pennsylvania.

According to the filing, not only the laws of those states but federal supplies have been violated:

"All of these shortcomings - even violations of state electoral law - violate one or more of the federal election requirements (ie, equal protection, due process and the electoral clause) and thus arise under federal law."

Bush v. Gore

They also refer to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 election campaign between Governor of Texas George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. The Supreme Court then ruled that the Florida census as announced stood for the recount, electing George W. Bush, son of 41st President George HW Bush (1989-1993), as President of the United States.

Namely, this case said the following:

See Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98, 113 (2000) "Significant departure from the legislative regime for the appointment of presidential electors is a federal constitutional issue" Chief Justice William Rehnquist

According to the case filed, the current irregularities are out of proportion that occurred in 2000. For example, it would ignore federal and state laws much more than it did 20 years ago.

They argue that the shortcomings in these elections exist to know who really won the election and threatens to overshadow all elections in the future.

Enough to change the result

“Taken together, these shortcomings affect an outcome-determining number of votes in a group of states that cast an outcome-determining number of electoral votes. This court should authorize the filing of the complaint and, ultimately, order the use of illegal election results without revision and ratification by the defendant states 'legislatures and for remand to the respective defendants' legislatures to elect presidential voters. appoint in a manner consistent with the Voters' Clause and pursuant to 3 USC §2. ”

The shortcomings, according to the petitioners, are enough to determine the outcome of the elections and would therefore not yet be certified tomorrow. Once the certification would have been, it is much more difficult to remove electoral fraud from the total number of votes, because the results had already been officially declared.

'Post votes are the biggest source of fraud'

Postal voting, both 'absentee' and 'mail-in ballots', increased enormously between the 2016 elections and the 2020 elections. In 2016, 33,5 million people voted by mail, in 2020 this was no less than 65 million ! That was the total number of votes that Hillary Clinton in 2016 has got. According to an rapport From 39th President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005, the post and absentee votes in the 2000 election were "the biggest source of potential electoral fraud."

“Absentee ballots are vulnerable to abuse in several ways: blank ballots sent to the wrong address or to large residential buildings can be intercepted. Citizens who vote at home, in nursing homes, at work, or at church are more sensitive to pressure, overt and subtle, or intimidation. Vote-buying schemes are much more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail. States must therefore reduce the risks of fraud and abuse in absenteeism by prohibiting “third party” organizations, candidates and political activists from dealing with absentee votes. States should also ensure that absentee ballots received by election officials before election day are kept safe until they are opened and counted. ”

So, according to the report of Democratic former president Jimmy Carter, the absent votes are open to major fraud. For example, they can be intercepted or delivered to the wrong address, people can also be intimidated or pressured into voting in a certain way. In addition, they also speak here about the phenomenon of 'ballot harvesting' that determined the 2018 elections in Orange County in California and changed from Republican to Democrat.

The report also talks about ensuring that ballots are not opened before Election Day, and that they must be kept safe. There are many reports from States such as Pennsylvania that the votes were not kept safe and were opened in advance.

The The Washington Post spoke in August 2020 about the plot to thwart President Abraham Lincoln in 1864 by preventing his re-election by postal votes.

Electors do not count

Texas Attorney-General Paxton requests the Supreme Court to declare that the electors who vote from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin should not be counted and that they violate the Electors Clause and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The four states come under the states where President Donald Trump's legal team is trying to challenge the election results that gave Joe Biden victory, according to the legacy media. All those States have already certified the result, but Team Trump is still trying to turn it around.

Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Democrats, has posted his opinion on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336331358642163725?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1336331358642163725%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Ftexas-supreme-court-lawsuit-against-states-election-changes

President Trump also responded on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336811823232921600?s=20

17 States support Texas

A total of seventeen other states have now also signed the lawsuit: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

We are going to see what the Supreme Court will do!


Spread the freedom!

Share this article!

Subscribe now
Subscribe to
guest
May be your real name or a pseudonym
Not required
0 comments
Inline feedback
See all comments
CommonSenseTV
nl Dutch
X
0
What is your response to this?x
()
x