James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.
“When four States allowed electors not appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, they violated the Constitution and the United States suffered injury.”
Some one needs to STEP UP. Continue reading SCOTUS ALLERT: When differences between states, threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together by the agency of the Courts or by Military force. (Alexander Hamilton)
On Trump’s side, in his fruitless efforts to overturn the election result, are most of the 74.2 million Americans who voted for him, along with 126 House Republicans who signed on to the Texas lawsuit rejected by the US Supreme Court last week.
Most of the rest of the country thinks they’re all loonies.
This damaging divide won’t be resolved by Biden moving into the White House, no matter how much he talks about “unity.”
When 62 percent of Republicans are convinced it is “very likely the Democrats stole the election,” according to a Rasmussen poll, and 28 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree, “Houston, we have a problem.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, put it best in Wednesday’s “Examining Irregularities in the 2020 Election” hearing:
“This is not a sustainable state of affairs in our democratic republic.”
It is clear to reasonable people that something was fishy about this unusual election, conducted during a pandemic.
Where people differ is whether the fishiness was enough to change the election result and, even if it was, whether it is possible to prove.
Continue reading NOT-SO-LOONEY: Australia’s Miranda Devine takes a look at some of the evidence of abnormality in the 2020 US Presidential Election.