Why SCOTUS Will Vindicate Trump’s Victory
The United States is a constitutional republic with limited democratic components but is not a democracy. While both forms of government are systems of citizen self-rule, pure democracy means majority rule in all things. Sounds great until you find yourself shipwrecked on Cannibal Island just in time for the vote on who to eat for dinner, or (similarly) you’re a certain presidential candidate illegally locked out of the vote counting process in heavily Democrat majority cities with proven histories of election fraud.
In contrast, our constitutional republic vests its authority in the legal principles established by God in the Bible which had been elucidated and codified in British Common Law over centuries and were expressly adopted by our founders in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The electoral college, the allocation of representation in congress, laws protecting election integrity, and our right to petition government with our grievances about these matters are all rooted in those legal principles.
It is this body of principles that define the Rule of Law and distinguishes it from the Rule of Man. It is essentially the difference between the Will of God and the Will of Man: a truth reflected in John Adam’s famous assertion, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Rule of Man, however, follows only one principle — that “Might Makes Right,” and it defines “right” by whatever the ruling power wants it to be.
Thus, in America, the Rule of Law is NOT about “following statutes” that have been established by the governing authorities, since statutes merely codify the will of the powerful and do not necessarily comport with the legal principles of the constitution.
This brings me to the matter of Democrat-controlled states “legalizing” universal ballot mail-outs, and post-election day acceptance of ballots. I am firmly convinced that the main purpose of this change was to increase the number of “unclaimed” ballots available to be “harvested” by the Democrat voter fraud machines in the swing states.
Obviously, this is a “conspiracy theory” in the truest sense of the word, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I (along with millions of my fellow constitutionalists), am in fact alleging conspiracy.
Now, in response to this well founded theory, and the ever growing body of evidence in support of it, much has been made by critics of the president that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that election fraud was committed.
As an attorney, I believe that it is, but purely for the sake of argument, let’s say they’re right. My answer is “So what?” This isn’t (at this stage) a criminal trial where we must prove our case “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even establish “clear and convincing evidence.” We need only establish sufficient evidence to justify an official investigation. Everyone should be familiar with this very low standard because it was used to justify the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate President Trump in the Russian Collusion Hoax. His enemies had far less proof of criminal conspiracy (in fact zero proof) than we have now against the Democrats.
Frankly, investigations for criminal conspiracy usually must proceed on limited evidence because of the secretive nature of this type of crime.
In Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and other voter fraud crime scenes the left clearly believe they can get away with their ballot stuffing by ensuring no-one can get close enough to witness what they’re actually doing in the counting rooms. And they may or may not be correct as to individual culpability on a case by case basis, because of the standards of proof in the courtroom.
But what we want at this point (at the very least) is not a conviction of individuals but the electoral equivalent of a mistrial – the legal requirement for that being merely “serious procedural error or misconduct” generally. That standard is met on its face in their refusal to allow meaningful access by pro-Trump observers, in at least one case directly defying a court order.
Additionally, there is a common law legal principle still heavily used in civil tort law that has a corollary in deciding logically whether a conspiracy theory merits investigation. The old legal term for this is the Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Or to translate this into the common vernacular “it doesn’t pass the smell test.”
However, as confident as I am that President Trump would win a re-do of the election in these key states, if such were ordered, that would not be the best outcome in this situation because the integrity of the election process itself will be permanently undermined if the bad policies at issue are not struck down. Least helpful would be recounts, which can not stop this particular type of fraud because the mail-in ballots have been separated from the envelopes they arrived in which bear the only identifying information about the voters. Yes, you can show the envelope is “from” a dead person but that doesn’t help in adjusting the vote tally either way.)
The best outcome (which I expect to occur) would be the simple invalidation of all ballots received after the close of the polls on election night. I hope but don’t expect the court to set a clear uniform standard for future elections that minimizes the potential for fraud. Both of these are clearly within the power of the court and consistent with constitutional originalism.
Returning to the problem of the Rule of Man; the most destructive form of it is Communism – purporting to be pure democracy (which is bad enough), but always forced upon nations by violent mobs with no moral or ethical restraint, and ultimately vesting power in a tiny elite of dictatorial tyrants. (Sound familiar?) Reportedly the Democrats are “chastened” by their election losses in Congress attributed to their open advocacy of Communist policies. This notion they’ve “learned their lesson and will govern as moderates” is a GOP establishment head-fake to minimize the significance of a Trump loss. Without SCOTUS intervention for Trump, Harris, Biden and Pelosi would continue in the same direction set by Obama and Clinton as fast as possible – and no-one in the GOP but Trump has the backbone to stop them.
