THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS INVALID
A SUPREME MISTAKE ABOUT A BREACH OF CONTRACT
There have been allegations by some that there was fraud involved in the 2020 election for president of the United States and argument by others who disagree by saying there is no evidence to prove that claim. These allegations and others like them miss the point. This approach misses the mark. The challenged election results were unlawfully accepted.
The election results should not have been accepted by Congress because there was a breach of contract, the Constitution of the United States, and therefore those results could not be counted in determining who should serve as president. By virtue of the illegal processes by several states, the entire election was void.
The Constitution is a contract formed by the representatives of the existing states at the time of its ratification, and is the law of the land. Article VI, Section 2 provides: “This Constitution … shall be the Supreme Law of the Land;….”
Any variation of the provisions of the contract such as the procedures necessary for federal election results to be accepted is unlawful.
Control of the procedures to be followed in federal elections is clearly established by Article I, Section 4 providing: “The … Manner of holding Elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;….”
The evidence is clear that several states varied from the mandated procedure when changes in the manner of the elections in those states were allowed to occur as a result of the decisions of non-legislative bodies, i.e., executive branch officials and courts. Those variations were unlawful under the terms of the contract, the Constitution, and the resulting votes were therefore null and void. They were valid for nothing and therefore could not be used to count and determine who prevailed in those states for the office of president.
Under the provisions relative to the selection of electors from those states to report the results to Congress, the unlawful acts could not be used to make a lawful selection for the electoral college and there is no question that Congress should not have accepted those electors to be counted because they had no validity.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that the acceptance of the electors sent by the various states was simply a ministerial act instead of determining that it was part of the checks and balances established by the contract. Otherwise any variation of the language of the Constitution would be possible and we would have to put aside objections making the wording meaningless. As former supreme court associate justice Antonin Scalia once famously stated in one of his opinions “… words matter….”
The Supreme Court was given a chance to hear the case regarding this issue and decided not to get involved. The case started with the State of Texas filing the lawsuit in the Court against the states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin with what is called a “Motion For Leave To File Bill Of Complaint”. Since this was a case of “original jurisdiction”, meaning the case could be filed directly in the Supreme Court as specified in the Constitution, why would the party filing need to ask for permission to file? Apparently because the Court has required it even though it is not in the Constitution. Can the Court re-write the Constitution or does such an amendment have to occur under Article V? The answer is an obvious one.
Texas alleged a violation of the the U.S. Constitution claiming that “non- legislative” branch authorities of the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin had changed the procedures for their elections for the President of the United States which would affect the selection of electors from those states and therefore be an improper procedure for the selection of those electors.
It is important to understand what was being alleged in filing the case. Texas set out the following language as the basis for the granting of the motion to hear the case:
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.
As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States:
- Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws , in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
- Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States
- The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.”
The Court ridiculously held that the questioning states had no “standing”. “Standing” is defined as “a right of people to challenge the conduct of another person in a court”. (Black’s Law Dictionary) In other words, the party does not have the authority to bring the case before the Court. Since when does a state or states, being the original parties to the contract (the Constitution) not have the authority to question the actions of other states in violation of the very contract by which they are all bound?
The action of the Court in refusing to hear the case was outrageous. To use an athletic contest analogy that would be like a situation during the game when there needs to be a ruling on a challenged event and the referees or umpires simply walk off the field or court.
Because the Court refused to rule on this question they have simply shown their branch of the federal government is no longer of legitimate use to the checks and balances established by the Constitution. The Court made a supreme mistake. The date on which the Court made this preposterous ruling will go down in legal history as a stain on our Republic.
The answer to the question whether any of the actions taken by the President Biden administration are valid and binding on American citizens is obvious.
Donald Brockett
Born July 8, 1936 in Chicago IL. Graduated Gonzaga University Law School in 1961. Served in Spokane County Prosecutor’s office 1961-1994, deputy and elected Prosecutor. Retired.