11/15/20

It’s Hard to go Forward when you’re Stuck in Reverse

By: Carolyn Alder

The battle every four years to capture the White House is a lose/lose situation.  It seems we are on the verge of self-destruction as the battle rages in the streets, in the media, in Congress, and in the courts.  We have civil unrest instead of domestic tranquility. The other party is not the enemy, party politics is the enemy.  I do not like being stuck in reverse in the political swamp of deceit, revenge, and despair.  But how do we move forward out of the political quicksand pulling us under? The solution is staring us in the face, but we have been ignoring it and abusing it for over 200 years—return to the Constitution.

The original Constitution was designed to select a president without a battle. Sadly, even many of the Founders and Framers took up party banners and were part of the trend to become partisan politicians instead of statesmen.  Instead of following the non-partisan path to statesmanship designed in the Constitution, they pushed toward a democracy of party politics.  George Washington expressed his dismay of this reversal in his farewell address:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

When all else fails—go back and read the instructions. The original Constitution outlined a far superior, non-partisan, multi-step, indirect process to elect a statesman (rather than a partisan politician) to be President of the United States.

The Presidential Electors were to be the first step in the process—not a meaningless rubber-stamp, after years of campaigning, advertising, political revenge, and a popular vote based on campaign promises and government handouts.

Article II, clause ll:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives…”

It was presumed that the Presidential Electors, would be persons carefully chosen based on their wisdom and experience.

“The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.”

The constitutionally assigned duty of each Elector was to nominate two presidential possibilities worthy of such a high office.  (Voting for two precluded campaigning for one.)  There were no pre-printed ballots because the Electors were to provide the names of potential candidates, not choose between predetermined candidates.  The Electors were independent and expected to always vote their conscience.  Now, if an Elector casts a vote different than the name submitted by their party, he is called a faithless Elector.  The Electors in each State did not need to agree.  Each Presidential Elector was to submit names of outstanding individuals who had proven themselves to be wise, responsible, uphold the principles of freedom, and the Constitution.  Then,

“They shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government…”

This was the original nominating process outlined in the Constitution. Now we send party delegates to party conventions and support candidates who have effectively self-nominated, to decide who is most likely to defeat the opposing party’s candidate.

The machinations of party politics early-on hijacked the constitutionally assigned duty of the Presidential Electors.  These machinations led to a hastily written and hastily ratified 12th Amendment in order for parties to select both a President and a Vice-president. It states:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of the government…”

Even with separated lists, Presidential Electors could discuss outstanding statesmen with other Electors in their State. Each Elector was to be an independent thinker, not a rubber-stamp to someone else’s opinion or even to a consensus of opinions.  They were the ones charged with the nominating process.

Then in a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate opened the sealed certificates and the votes were tallied.  This is when the candidates would be known.  A majority vote of the whole number of Electors appointed (This would be extremely rare without manipulation.) is required for each office. Otherwise,

“the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each having one vote…a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice,”

This type of federal system construction meant that the States (the House of Representatives) would, with extremely rare exceptions, make the final election.  Each State having one vote is an important safeguard to liberty in a federal republic.

Even the 12th Amendment did not actually authorize a popular vote for president even though it greatly facilitated this perversion by political parties of the original plan.

Party politics have destroyed constitutional government in many ways, too numerous to describe here.  Every State Legislature has turned their constitutionally assigned duty of choosing wise Presidential Electors over to the political parties.

The battle of an endless war rages on.  We can’t go forward because we are stuck in reverse in the political swamp. To go forward, a start to restoring the Constitution would be for the States to take back their constitutional responsibilities, such as appointing Presidential Electors who can do their job as described above.

The structure of the original Constitution was intelligently designed to establish and safeguard freedom.  The United States was to be a constitutional representative republic not a democracy.

See:

The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College

11/6/20

Remember Churchill’s Words to “Never Surrender”

By: Cliff Kincaid

Ben Shapiro is a good talker who can win arguments with left-wingers. But his column, headlined, “No Matter the Outcome, the Woke Lost,” is self-defeating. Operating on the basis of the phrase, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade,” he seems to think Trump may have lost but the left lost, too. So we’re all losers? That’s not a good approach as we move forward.

The fact is that Joe Biden lost and President Trump won. That’s what Trump is saying, with evidence, and I believe him.

If Shapiro disagrees, let him prove that Biden won legitimately. Trump has cited the evidence of fraud that we saw with our own eyes, as ballot dumps turned Wisconsin and Michigan against Trump. Other states are falling to Biden under equally mysterious circumstances. What more evidence do we need?

As Biden might say, “Come on, man.”

His bio says that Ben lives with his wife and three children in Los Angeles. As a result, I have to question his common sense. Get out of California, Ben. You are living in occupied territory. We are fighting to keep the rest of America free.

Ben has his place, but he was never pro-Trump. By contrast, Alex Newman is a great young journalist who was sympathetic to Trump and has now published a piece, “Massive Vote Fraud Across U.S. as Trump Decries Attempted Coup.”

The evidence cited in this column is what Ben Shapiro and his sponsors at CNSNews.com should be focusing on.

Please, CNSNews.com editor Terrence Jeffrey, stop wasting our time with limp-wristed commentary from never-Trumpers during this critical period of time. This is the time to assume that the media-declared Biden “win” is a fraud and that Trump, who is claiming victory, has been re-elected.

As another Democrat, Bill Clinton might say, that’s our story, and we’re sticking to it. In this case, however, our side of the story is buttressed by the evidence.  It’s important to operate on the assumption that Trump, as he claims, has been re-elected.

Anybody who depends on the “official” tally, which comes from those opposed to Trump, is a fool or agent of the opposition.

What we have to guard against is the unfortunate tendency of some “conservatives” to sell out, in order to curry favor with their would-be rulers.

Here’s how Alex Newman begins his column: “Reports, videos, and other evidence of rampant and brazen voter fraud from all across the country — especially in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats — continue pouring in faster than the Big Tech giants can censor it and the fake ‘fact-checking’ industry can dishonestly attempt to discredit it.”

Alex is exactly right, and I suggest reading the rest of his article here. Alex is also an expert on the Deep State and the New World Order. He contributed to one of my books exposing Barack Hussein Obama.

We are in a constitutional crisis and the election scandal is part of it.

But even this fraud cannot be viewed in isolation, as it comes after various attempts to take down this president. Vote fraud follows the fake news Russia dossier and the impeachment drive.

We know the FBI and FBI used Russian disinformation against Trump. What’s more, impeachment was designed to accuse Trump of the corruption that Biden and his son were engaged in. We know all of this. So why do we think that the Democrats would conduct an election fairly and honestly?

So please, Ben, don’t question the “outcome.” We already know who won. Don’t be a doubting Ben.

Ben is a young man, and my three sons are young, too. That’s why they have to understand what is really happening here. It is unprecedented. The corruption is more deadly than the China virus.

One of my readers said to me, “I am 72 years of age. Until the last few years, I would never have believed what I’m seeing take place in the country could take place/happen. The road we are on is a bad one indeed, and I’m glad I don’t have many years left to see what appears to be an eventual fall of the nation.”

This is really sad. I don’t agree that the nation is destined to fall.

“People are never going to give up on this country,” Rush Limbaugh just said on his radio show today. Here’s a man facing death’s door. But he has faith in God and America. We pray for his health and the health of our country.

He’s exposing the vote fraud apparatus. He’s not giving up. He’s trying to inspire conservatives to take the fight to the opposition.

Trump has a very good lawyer in his corner, the former U.S. Attorney and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He brought down New York’s Mafia families. He exposed the Hunter Biden laptop and is now out front on the fraud issue.

By contrast, Biden is a weak man, apparently controlled by Obama’s handlers hoping to replace him with Kamala Harris – if they get into the White House.

Standing in their way is President Trump.

As Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano Archbishop says, Americans should not lose heart. He tells us, “Do not allow yourselves to be discouraged by the deceptions of the Enemy, even more so in this terrible hour in which the impudence of lying and fraud dares to challenge Heaven.” His messages are read and sometimes Tweeted by Trump.

But perhaps these spiritual messages will now be censored by Twitter as well.

Facing the Nazis,  British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said “we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Trump is Churchill in the current struggle. God is on our side. But beyond faith, we have to fight for national and personal survival. Our lives are in danger. It’s that serious.

In order to prepare for the worst, I suggest reading the booklet, “Insurrection and Violence: A Citizen’s Guide,” published by the firm Unconstrained Analytics before the election fraud became so obvious in the last several days.

As Trump moves ahead to save his presidency, we have to understand how the street protests will probably accelerate. The authors warn, “The consequence of citizen inaction, at this perilous moment, is to put at risk the Constitution, our way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The bio for one of the firm’s top officers, Rich Higgins, notes that he “served on the National Security Council in the Trump Administration as the Director for Strategic Planning. He was removed in 2017 after warning of a deep state coup to remove the President.”

You can now be sure that Trump is taking these warnings seriously and understands the nature of the crisis.

*For updates, please use the contact form at www.usasurvival.org

10/21/20

Chairman Thomas Klingenstein of the Claremont Institute: America’s Choice Between Trump’s Freedom and Biden’s Revolutionary Radicalism

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Alex Brandon / Associated Press

Thomas Klingenstein is the chairman of the conservative think tank, the Claremont Institute, and he’s an accomplished businessman. In this video, he is stating his private opinion and feelings. And he does it magnificently. Recently, he gave a speech entitled: “Trump 2020 A Man vs. A Movement” on YouTube that has since gone viral with over a million views. Rush Limbaugh promoted it as well. Why? Because Klingenstein lays out the stark choice between electing President Trump, who believes in America and freedom, and Joe Biden, who is a Trojan Horse for the Left who believes in Marxism, cancel-culture, and the destruction of the American way of life as we know it.

This election is without a doubt the most important one of our lifetime. Probably the most important since 1860 and President Trump is the right man for the office at this point in time for America. He is what we need and possibly the one man who can pull us back from the brink of communism. It doesn’t matter whether you like him personally, look at what he has accomplished, and what he plans to do as well as what he stands for. Then look at Joe Biden… arguably the most corrupt vice-president we have ever had as a nation. He simply marinates in corruption daily and uses his family to accomplish his goals and enrich himself via the Ukrainians, the communist Chinese, or whoever else he can bilk.

Democrats would have you believe that this election is about Trump versus Biden. That’s not it and it is a critical point that even the Republicans seem to not grasp. It’s also not solely about race, the economy, or the Coronavirus. It is about the inherent goodness of America versus the evil of Marxism. This is the ‘change’ the Left has been trying to foist on this nation for decades and they now believe it is within their grasp. When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 and failed to keep the Left’s plan on track, they panicked. Democrats simply could not let a loose cannon like Trump mess up their plans. So, they have unleashed the militant arm of the Democratic Party – Black Lives Matter and Antifa to bring chaos and bloodshed to our streets. This will continue whether Trump wins or not and the cold civil war the US has been mired in for several years now could very well go hot if the riots and unrest are allowed to continue. It will be aided by the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party – the media.

As Klingenstein has posited it, “the election is about America’s character: specifically, whether America is a good country or whether it should be canceled.” That is what all of this boils down to and I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans believe in the goodness of our country. Republicans seem to be deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to the orchestrated revolution raging in our streets. They don’t get that since a soft coup did not do the trick against Trump, that a color revolution is the next planned step for American communists. See George Soros and the Obama State Department who have conducted color revolutions across the globe. These two opposing views of America cannot coexist peacefully.

The Founding Fathers’ system of government was built on individual rights. The Left’s form of preferred government is based on groups’ rights and group-think which are based on communist principles. And as opposed to a Constitutional form of government where all rights are respected, the radical Left believes in the suppression of rights of those that disagree with them and the squelching of voices on media platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Just look at the stated goals put forth by Biden, Harris, and the Democrats. They want to end the family unit, erase our history as a nation, throw open our borders to all, encourage live and at-will abortions, and strip us of our right to bear arms. If you view the 45 Communist goals for America, you will find that every single one of them is what the Democrats are pushing for right now and many have already been accomplished. And the Republicans have slept through it all not wanting to rock the political boat.

Remember when Michelle Obama said this: “Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” She meant it and it was a blatant announcement prepping Americans for what the Left had in mind for the United States. They are working hard at accomplishing it. If Americans are fearful to come out of their homes, are silenced at every turn, and fear for their jobs and families, then the Left will have succeeded at the subjugation of the freest nation this planet has ever known.

Democrats use the cry of ‘racism’ as a political bludgeoning tool to silence those who do not agree with them. But it is not racist to disagree with BLM, Antifa, or communism regardless of what they claim. Americans need to stand up and be heard no matter how hard the Left tries to silence them. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” He was right and this is the time to speak up and act no matter the consequences or conservative Americans will surely learn what it is like to live in a totalitarian society replete with gulags and reeducation camps. The Left has already proposed this with the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission.”

Trump is a man of his time. He’s not perfect but he has the intestinal fortitude, common sense, bluntness, and willingness to fight that Americans need desperately at this moment. He loves America, the military, and our police. He believes in the rule of law and keeping our way of life good and just. Biden is a Trojan Horse for the Left that will deliver social justice, critical race theory, liberation theology, the Green New Deal, Marxism, crushing taxation, defunding of the police, and globalism… in short, communism.

Americans need to choose wisely on November 3rd because the fate of the Republic is at stake here. This is a choice between good and evil; Constitutional Conservatism or Cultural Marxism. On the one hand, you have the moral Right and on the other, you have the godless Left. It’s time to choose a side and fight for what we believe in. And President Trump is the man to lead that fight.

For full context, the transcript of the video follows:

THOMAS KLINGENSTEIN: My name is Tom Klingenstein. I am the chair of the board of the Claremont Institute which is a conservative think tank, managing partner of a New York investment firm and playwright.

I wish to make three points. First, Trump is the perfect man for these times, not all times, perhaps not most times, but these times. Second, Republicans are not doing a good job explaining the stakes in this election. They must explain, and this is my third point, that the Democratic Party, which has been taken by its radical wing, is leading a revolution. This makes the coming election the most important one since the election of 1860. Let’s begin there.

Unlike most elections, this one is much more than a contest over particular policies—like health care or taxes. Rather, like the election of 1860, this election is a contest between two competing regimes, or ways of life. Two ways of life that cannot exist peacefully together.

One way of life, I’ll call it “the traditional American way of life,” is based on individual rights, the rule of law, and a shared understanding of the common good. This way of life values hard work, self-reliance, volunteerism, patriotism, and so on.

In this way of life there are no hyphenated Americans. We are all just Americans. Colorblindness is our aspiration.

The other way of life I call multiculturalism. Others call it “identity politics” or “cultural Marxism” or “Intersectionality”.

The multicultural movement, which has taken over the Democratic party, is a revolutionary movement. I do not mean a metaphorical revolution. It is not like a revolution; it is a revolution, an attempt to overthrow the American Founding as President Trump said in his excellent Mt. Rushmore speech. Republicans should say the same thing. Republicans everywhere, at every level, and at every opportunity.

Multiculturalism conceives of society, not as a community of individuals with equal rights but as a collection of cultural identity groups—defined by race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth. According to the multiculturalists, all these identity groups are oppressed by white males.

Their goal is to have each identity group proportionally represented in all institutions of American society. As should be immediately clear, achieving this proportional representation requires a never-ending redistribution of wealth and power from some groups—and not just from whites—to other groups. Such a massive redistribution can only be achieved by a tyrannical government and like in all tyrannies, one where dissenters are silenced.

In order to achieve this proportional representation, the Democrats require not just endless affirmative action but genuine socialism, open borders, unrestricted trade, seizing guns, sanctuary cities, and much more.

The Black Lives Matter/Democrats understand (which Republicans seem not to), that if they are to achieve this policy agenda they must get Americans to change their values, their principles, and the way they understand themselves.

They must get us to believe that national borders and colorblindness are racist; that we are not one culture but many; that the most important thing in our history—the thing around which all else pivots—is slavery. More broadly, the multiculturalists must get us to believe that we are unworthy—not just that we have sinned (which of course we have)—but that we are irredeemably sinful, or, in the language of today, “systemically racist.” And sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and all the other “ists” and phobias. Simply put, multiculturalism must get us to believe we are bad.

This suggests one way to frame the coming election: as a contest between a man, Trump, who believes America is good and a man, Biden, who is controlled by a movement that believes America is bad. I do not think it is any more complicated than that.

For the multiculturalist to change traditional values and principles they must destroy, or radically restructure, the institutions that teach those values and principles. The most important of these institutions is family, but also very important is religion, education (which they have mostly destroyed already) and community life, replacing the latter with government bureaucrats. It is here—in these value-teaching institutions—that we see the underpinnings of the Revolution. This is where the real action is. Republicans seem to be missing in action.

Republicans need to explain that BLM and their Democratic enablers wish to destroy the traditional mother-father family. To substantiate this claim, Republicans have only to point to the BLM mission statement. The mission statement, written by avowed Marxists, also lets us know that BLM holds transgenderism to be the burning issue of our time.

Republicans must also explain that religion, because it teaches American values, is also on the chopping block.

Republicans also must make American see that the taking down of statues is not about removing a few confederate generals; it’s about destroying America’s past, as is the New York Times 1619 Project. The rioters, and their BLM-Democrats enablers, are tearing down the statues even of people like Frederick Douglass who fought against slavery. This is not an accident. It is not collateral damage. Frederick Douglass was a great American. He believed that America in her soul was not racist. He believed in hard work and self-reliance. And because of his embrace of American values the BLM-Democrats have to get rid of him.

They must also get rid of Abraham Lincoln, for it is he who best explains what we should aspire to. And it is he who is the best defender of the American Founding. In one sense, this election is a referendum on the Founding. Whether America was founded in 1619, as the BLM-Democrats contend, or, in 1776 as Lincoln, and, until recently, all Americans believed.

Republicans must make more of political correctness and cancel culture, which, as we have seen so vividly of late, brutally punishes apostates.

Who does Twitter think it is, censoring an American president? Republicans simply cannot stand for that.

And Republicans must explain, as I earlier explained, that the multiculturalists are trying to get us to believe that we are systemically racist so that we will surrender to their policy agenda. This too must not be allowed to stand. The American people need to hear what they know in their hearts: they are not racists. Republicans should stand up and say, “no, America is not racist.” Period.

If Americans are systemically anything, it is a systemic commitment to freedom and equal rights for all.

Perhaps most importantly, Republicans must say over and over that America is “incredible,” to use President Trump’s adjective of choice. They must remind the American people that, as a friend of mine is fond of saying, America has brought more freedom and more prosperity to more people than any country in the history of mankind. Most Americans know this, but this too they need to hear from their leaders.

In order to make the case that the Democrats are leading a revolution, Republicans must delegitimize Black Lives Matter—the organization, of course, not the sentiment. To BLM and their Democratic enablers, Republicans must say: “Absolutely, black lives matter. They just don’t matter to you. You don’t care about Mr. Floyd, the black businesses you have destroyed, the blacks who are getting killed because you have forced the police to back off. You’re here for destruction. Not black lives, not any lives.”

After delegitimizing Black Lives Matter, the next step for Republicans is to tie BLM’s revolutionary agenda around the necks of Democrats.

The BLM wing of the Democratic party has captured the entire party. Run-of-the-mill Democrats may not agree with all of the BLM agenda but they go-along, so they might as well agree. Joe Biden is one of the go-along Democrats.

So do not expect all Democrats to sing the BLM tune; even so, most will kneel before them.

Listen to Biden. On one occasion Biden said, “Let’s be clear, transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.” A year ago, Biden may not have even known what transgenderism is. He does not seem to know it, but he has been radicalized.

Biden now regularly talks about “systemic” racism. On one occasion Biden said, though without evidence, there is “absolutely systemic racism in law enforcement.” “[But] it’s not just in law enforcement,” he continued, “it’s across the board. It’s in housing, it’s in education . . . It’s in everything we do.”

He is wrong on every count, but if indeed he believes that racism is in “everything we do,” that it is systemic, then he believes, whether he admits or not, that the system must be overturned. Biden does not realize it, but he is calling for the overthrow of the American way of life. I presume that is not his intent, but when the words he is reading off his BLM teleprompter get translated into policy, that will be the consequence — the destruction of the American way of life.

Biden demurs. There is nothing to fear from Biden says Biden: “Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters?” No, he does not, but what he does look like is a sap.

Republicans must make it clear that these are the “Biden riots.”

This brings me to my last point: Trump. I know President Trump has many faults. I myself sometimes cringe listening to him. Sometimes he is his own worst enemy. He is a braggart, often misinformed, petty, sometimes even vengeful. And more.

And yet, we are very lucky to have him. I am almost prepared to say that having him is Providential. How else to explain that we find ourselves with this most unusual, most unpresidential man who has just the attributes most needed for this moment. At any other time, he might well have been a bad president. But in these times—these revolutionary times—he is the best president we could have had.

He has the indispensable attribute of a leader: courage. As a leader must, he goes where others are afraid to go. And he has common sense, which means he generally wants to go to the right place.

Above all else, and above anyone else, Trump is committed to America. He is unreservedly, unquestionably pro-America. He feels no guilt for America’s past. He makes no apologies. He concedes nothing. These may not always be the attributes one wants in a President, but in this day of woke guilt they are the most essential things. And Trump has unlimited confidence in America. In this time of national doubt, this too is just what the doctor ordered. He thinks our culture is “incredible” and that’s the way he wants to keep it.

Trump not only thinks America is incredible, he knows we are in a fight for our lives.

And despite what one hears ad nauseum from the Democrats, Trump is perhaps among the least racist presidents we have ever had. Trump is not defending the white way of life; he is defending the American way of life, a colorblind way of life which is open to anyone who is willing to embrace it.

If we want to save our country, then we should support him—unequivocally. I am. I think this election is that important, and I think Trump is that good. I hope you agree.

Remember, Trump versus Biden is the choice between a man who believes America is good and a man who is controlled by a movement which believes America is bad.

10/12/20

What can we do to get a reasonably honest election?

By: Publius Huldah

A disaster of monumental proportions is likely to be ahead for our Country if we don’t take emergency action to get at least a reasonably honest election.  Not only the President’s seat, but also the entire US House, the Houses in the State Legislatures, one/third of the seats in the US Senate, and a proportional number of seats in the State Senates, are all at stake in the upcoming election.

We are faced with irrefutable proof that the Marxists intend to steal the election.  And they will not content themselves with stealing only the President’s seat – they seek to steal every seat on the ballots.

So we need to face up to the problem and take immediate action.

  1. What does Congress have the constitutional authority to do?

The President and Vice President are supposed to be elected using the procedures set forth in Article II, §1, cl. 2, and the 12th Amendment to our US Constitution.  But we have ignored those provisions for a great many years; and it’s too late to obey them for the upcoming election of President and Vice President.

But Congress still has constitutional authority to invoke Article II, §1, cl. 4, which invests in Congress the power to determine the time of chusing the Presidential Electors and the Day on which they vote.  That date is currently set for November 3, 2020.

Pursuant to Article I, §4, cl. 1, Congress may make laws determining the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding the federal elections to Congress.

Since we know that Trump ballots have been tossed into dumpsters, and election offices have been flooded with fake Biden ballots; the best course of action would be for Congress to make a law which reschedules the November 3 election to a later date, and cancels everything which has been done so far respecting the election (at least since the primaries).

Congress could then exercise its constitutional authority to establish common-sense procedures respecting the “Time, Place and Manner” of voting in the upcoming elections.  For example, Congress could pass a law providing that:

  • Every registered voter who wants to vote must physically appear at his officially designated place of voting and produce proof of identity.
  • Election Day should be one day – not weeks and months before & after the date set for the election.
  • Absentee voting should be restricted to those who are out of the country or out of state due to military service, service in the diplomatic corps, missionaries stationed overseas, businessmen stationed overseas, etc.

We used to do it this way.

But the Marxists came in with their hard-luck stories about how these requirements were harsh, unfair, discriminatory, and so forth; and so our side [as usual] caved in and went along with the demands which stripped us of the ability to have even reasonably honest elections.

However, because Marxists now control the House, Congress lacks the ability to act as suggested above.

  1. What does the US Supreme Court have the constitutional authority to do?

Article I, §4, cl. 1 provides that the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting in federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political question” doctrine [LINK], the Judicial Branches of state and the federal government have no lawful authority to substitute their views on these issues for those of the Legislative Branches.

Even so, with respect to the upcoming elections, lawless federal and state judges have been usurping power by substituting their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for the views of State Legislatures.  Some judges are ruling that because of COVID-19, voters shouldn’t be required to go to the polls – everyone must be allowed to vote by mail; and the time for counting ballots must be extended.

Obviously, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to substitute their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for those of the legislative bodies.  Instead, the Supreme Court’s duty is to issue orders and judgments which adhere to what the Constitution says.

So the Supreme Court should overturn the usurpations orders of state and federal judges who attempted to usurp power over this issue.  They should remind The People of our Country that only the State Legislatures and Congress may address these issues – that judges must keep their hands off.   The power isn’t given to the Judicial Branches.

But a recent case out of South Carolina indicates that the most we will get from the Supreme Court is an unprincipled “cut the baby in half” compromise.

South Carolina law provides that a witness must sign an absentee ballot for the ballot to be valid. The Marxists (or their dupes) objected to this requirement and sued.  Using COVID-19 as the excuse, the federal judge disagreed [!] with the statutory requirement for a witness, and said the State couldn’t enforce it.  South Carolina election officials applied to the US Supreme Court for a stay of the lower Court’s order. 1

On October 5, 2020, in Andino v. Middleton [LINK], the Supreme Court stayed the Order, except to the extent that any ballots cast before they granted the Stay and received within two days of their Order may not be rejected.

So the Supreme Court’s Order is nothing for us to celebrate.  The Supreme Court is allowing several days’ worth of unlawful ballots to be treated as valid; and thus are rewarding the trial judge’s usurpation of powers granted to the South Carolina Legislature, by allowing these unlawful ballots to be counted.

But our good Justices, Thomas and Alito, and Gorsuch as well, would have granted the Stay in full and disqualified all the unlawful absentee ballots.

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggests that, like the majority, he doesn’t understand that the Judicial Branch has no constitutional authority to alter State election laws re the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections.  To the contrary, he pointed out that the actions of the lower Court violated Supreme Court precedent that (1) an unelected federal judge ordinarily shouldn’t make public health decisions which overrule State Legislatures, and (2) federal courts ordinarily shouldn’t alter state election rules in the period close to an election.  Yikes!

So while the Supreme Court might “give” us some relief from the massive cheating, it seems unlikely that they will provide a principled defense of our Constitution.

  1. What must State Governments do?

State governments may be the only way salvage, at least to some extent, the upcoming election.  Since the Judicial Branches of the State and federal governments have no constitutional authority to change the decisions of the Legislative Branches respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections; State Governments should instruct the Election Officials for their State that they must obey & enforce the election laws passed by their state legislature and not the usurpations orders of judges.  Judges have no constitutional authority to change what the State Legislatures do on this issue!

Election officials should also be shown that judges have no power to enforce their orders & judgments – that they depend on the Executive Branches of the federal or state governments to enforce them. We are doomed if Americans remain unable to grasp this simple concept.

Endnote:

1 The better course of action would have been for South Carolina to nullify the lawless opinion of the federal judge by refusing to enforce it.  Remember! Federal judges have no army – they can’t enforce their Orders.  They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t to enforce them.  Who thinks President Trump would send in the National Guard to force South Carolina election officials to allow cheating in the upcoming election?  If those officials had been familiar with what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), they would have known this.

10/2/20

Voting is Protected Speech but so is Not Voting

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: There are going to be countless legal challenges to vote results nationwide, it cannot be avoided. Just prepare for a mess larger than that of the Bush-Gore results which took 36 days.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.

Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of the individual’s membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

People often confuse civil rights and civil liberties. Civil rights refer to legal provisions that stem from notions of equality. Civil rights are not in the Bill of Rights; they deal with legal protections. For example, the right to vote is a civil right. A civil liberty, on the other hand, refers to personal freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment’s right to free speech is a civil liberty.

Read on however and give this a bit of critical thinking.

Free speech protected by the 1st Amendment has thousands of moving parts including voting or not voting. There are many times where free speech is not only challenged but removed as a civil right as noted in the case of a criminal conviction of a felony.

Wearing a t-shirt or a hat with a logo or slogan is free speech just as much as flying a flag at your home is or even not doing so.

Mandatory Voting Will Build Resentment, Not Democracy ...

Additional reading: Mandatory Voting Will Build Resentment, Not Democracy/ Fining non-voters would show that government is all about forcing people to do things just to make politicians happy.

So, when it comes to ballot harvesting, consider that forcing votes by turning in ballots for tabulation is against free speech. This all stems from voter rolls (databases) that are not audited, purged, corrected, or amended. People move away, people die, people change names and people request ballots using phony names and addresses. Mass mailings of the entire database are not representative of quality and current data. Then there is the matter of ballot design that is challenged making it confusing for the voter or the matter of mistakes made in the comparisons of signatures on file to the actually submitted ballot. How about errors made in names and addresses in the mass mailings where it does not at all match yet the ballots are mailed? What about people tailing the Post Office and delivery personnel and grabbing ballots out of mail trays or slots or simply offering a stipend to fill out the ballot for the alleged voter on their behalf?

There is still the matter of voter ID which has yet to be resolved in many states.

But now we are hearing many other incidents of ballot malfunctions including 100,000 in New York.

Valerie Vazquez-Diaz, a spokesperson for the board, told CNN that 99,477 voters in Brooklyn were affected by an issue with the “oath” envelope for their absentee ballot.

The envelopes—which include the voter’s name, address, and voter ID—were sent with the wrong name and address, a problem that was first reported Monday by confused voters, though its scope was unknown.

Here too it is important to note that many candidate vote results come down to a mere few hundred votes where absentee ballots or provisional ballots come into question.

For the matter of not voting…this matter of ballot harvesting is forcing a name in many cases as a vote where otherwise there may not be a vote at all and that too is free speech. One has to ask is this a violation of the civil rights of an individual? Of course, it is….perhaps a person is apathetic, disgusted, or otherwise not engaged at all in any part of government affairs or policy? That is fine too under the 1st Amendment.

The media should really challenge the whole matter of civil rights violations and ballot harvesting.

More from Forbes in part:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio harshly criticized the NYC Board of Elections Tuesday morning: “This is appalling. It is so easy to avoid this mistake and it is very easy to fix this mistake.”

Key Background

This error comes amid continued attacks on mail-in voting from President Trump, who has insisted—without evidence—that the Democrats will use mail-in voting, “a whole big scam,” to steal the 2020 election. News from last week that a “small number” of ballots in Pennsylvania had been discarded further fueled the president’s accusations of widespread “voter fraud.”

Further Reading

“Pennsylvania Discarded Ballot Mishap Fuels Trump Attacks On Mail-In Voting” (Forbes)

“FBI Warns Cyber Criminals, Foreign Actors Spreading ‘False Claims’ About U.S. Voting To Undermine 2020 Election” (Forbes)

09/18/20

Trump Announces 1776 Commission

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Patriotism, factual history, and civics could make a comeback in the educational system. FINALLY and one must remember civics was replaced in the public school system with ‘social studies’. What are social studies anyway and does it really teach about the founding documents, the Founders themselves, the structure of government, and fundamental natural law? Yeah, not so much. There are countless politicians that need refresher courses and most media does as well.

File:The Second Continental Congress voting independence ...

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday he would sign a new executive order establishing the “1776 Commission” to promote patriotic education. The commission will counter the revisionist history peddled by leftist efforts like the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which imposes false narratives on America’s students.

“The narratives about America being pushed by the far left and being chanted in the streets bear a striking resemblance to the anti-American propaganda of our adversaries,” Trump said in remarks during the White House Conference on American History at the National Archives. He further described the 1619 Project—a collection of essays that cast America as an irredeemably racist empire built solely to oppress minorities—as “ideological poison.”

Earlier this year, China successfully weaponized American wokeness to drive divisions deeper in the U.S., seeking to evade responsibility for the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak by complaining that any term linking the virus to its Chinese origins was racist. Woke reporters soon complied with Beijing’s orders and began badgering the president repeatedly on his use of terms consistent with the naming of new diseases.

“Critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and the crusade against American history is toxic propaganda,” Trump said, “that if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together. It will destroy our country.”

Trump’s announcement marks the latest example of the White House’s decision to engage substantively in the culture war, coming less than two weeks after the administration banned critical race theory training at federal agencies.

The new 1776 Commission, Trump said, “will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and make plans to honor the 250th anniversary of our founding.”

Several Republican House members also ramped up their efforts to counter the 1619 Project, which has already infected K-12 curriculums in some 4,500 classrooms. Earlier Thursday, Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado and Rick Allen of Georgia introduced the House companion bill to legislation from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton that would bar federal funding from schools incorporating the 1619 Project in their curriculums.

Launched last year, the progressive project spearheaded by the Times’ riot-cheering Nikole Hannah-Jones (who won a Pulitzer for the project’s opening essay, even though it required a major correction) has made its way into the classrooms of major schools districts such as Chicago and Washington D.C.

Watch a short documentary debunking the project here:


09/16/20

Pennsylvania Court Agrees There Is No Pandemic Exception To Constitution

By: Daniel John Sobieski

Does the Wuhan virus, which arguably escaped from a Chinese virology lab, supersede the rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution? U.S. Federal District Judge William Stickman IV has ruled in a case brought before him that there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and that the Bill of Rights cannot be trampled with impunity whenever there is a health emergency leftist ideologues try to exploit to impose their desired control over every aspect of our daily lives.  As Reason Magazine reports:

A federal judge on Monday has ruled that lockdown restrictions imposed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), including a ban on large gatherings and the closure of “non-life sustaining businesses,” are unconstitutional.

While those restrictions were “well-intentioned,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV, “good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge. Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable and the intent is good—especially in time of emergency.”

In May, Wolf and Pennsylvania Department of Health Secretary Rachel Levine were sued by a coalition of counties, federal and state elected representatives, and several small businesses over the state’s coronavirus restrictions. The restrictions included a shelter-in-place order requiring people to stay in their homes, a closure of all “non-life-sustaining” businesses, and bans on gatherings of more than 25 people indoors, or 250 people for outdoor gatherings….

In regards to restrictions on gatherings, Stickman ruled that these were not “narrowly tailored” but “rather, they place substantially more burdens on gatherings than needed to achieve their stated purpose” of controlling the transmission of the virus….

Stickman similarly ruled that Wolf’s order closing non-life sustaining businesses was also overly broad and arbitrary, and deprived Pennsylvanians of their right to earn a living under the 14th Amendment. Stickman also wrote that population-wide lockdowns are “such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.”

Judge Stickman agrees with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s observation in a tweet on Constitution Day about the government taking away our freedoms under the stalking horse of protecting our health:

Happy #ConstitutionDay. We should never forget the Constitution wasn’t written to restrain citizen’s behavior it was written to restrain the government’s behavior. Protecting the Constitution protects our liberties.

Again, does the Wuhan virus which arguably escaped from a Chinese virology lab supersede the rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution? The owners of a New Jersey gym think not. They want to earn a living and pursue their American dream and like most business owners and their customers, they are not stupid, suicidal, or children. They are American citizens who are watching their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being ripped away by dime-store Napoleons and tyrants who see this pandemic as a chance to pursue the liberal progressive dream of controlling every aspect of our lives:

Atilis Gym in Bellmawr, New Jersey reopened on Monday morning in defiance of Governor Phil Murphy’s Coronavirus lockdown order.

“We think so far, this has been just a gross violation of constitutional rights,” said Atilis Gym co-owner Ian Smith in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “The 14th Amendment states that no state shall pass any law that infringes upon our rights as citizens, and we’ve been forced into our homes. Enough is enough.”

As some states, mostly red states, open up and people begin to regain their lives and their liberty, it is clear this toothpaste is out of its tube. American citizens are as mad as hell and clearly aren’t going to take it anymore. Many, like the Texas salon owner who risked incarceration to feed her children, are not going to wait for an official green light from governors and mayors they feel have no right to usurp their rights or politicians who insist imposing a police state is for our own good, our health, and safety. The owners of the New Jersey gym have found out that the price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance – and resistance to government tyranny:

A New Jersey gym reopened again Tuesday in defiance of the state’s orders against workout facilities reopening during the coronavirus outbreak and again police arrived to issue tickets to the owners. At least one patron was also arrested leaving the gym after refusing to give his name.

Police also warned supporters gathered outside to leave or they could also face summonses.

“This gathering is a violation of the governor’s order,” Bellmawr Lt. Mike Draham said. “You are directed to immediately and peaceably disperse. If you do not disperse you can be charged. You can protest from your vehicle…That’s all we have right now.”

They also have the frightening words of the Democrat Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson of Foz News:

Carlson asked Murphy about the arrests in Ocean County, N.J., of 15 men who were congregating for a rabbi’s funeral at a Lakewood synagogue in early April. “

The Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans’ rights — enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully,” Carlson said. “By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?”

“That’s above my pay grade, Tucker,” Murphy replied. “I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this. … We looked at all the data and the science and it says people have to stay away from each other. That is the best thing we can do to break the back of the curve of this virus, that leads to lower hospitalization and ultimately fatalities.”

The very Constitution you took an oath to protect and defend is above your pay grade, Governor? This is the attitude Americans are starting to rebel against. Democrats accused Trump of being a dictator. Governors such as Murphy and many mayors too are little dictators, little Napoleons whose true colors are being revealed, who believe in data and science but not liberty and freedom and not an American people who tamed a continent, split the atom, went to the moon, beat Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.

Thankfully, some courts are beginning to wake up and pay attention to these arbitrary and unconstitutional assaults on our liberties as free Americans unite and pursue legal action. In North Carolina, a District Court judge actually wondered what happened to the concept of equal protection under the law:

Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper’s restrictions on indoor religious services show a distrust of those who are worshipping, according to a ruling from a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III temporarily blocked Cooper’s restrictions on indoor services in a Saturday ruling, The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., reported.

Dever said that Cooper’s stay-at-home order presents a double standard by only allowing up to 10 people at a religious service while letting businesses accommodate up to 50 people at a time….

“The record, at this admittedly early stage of the case, reveals that the Governor appears to trust citizens to perform non-religious activities indoors (such as shopping or working or selling merchandise) but does not trust them to do the same when they worship together indoors,” the judge’s ruling said.

The judge did not mention that under Cooper’s order the Last Supper would be illegal – an indoor gathering of more than 10 people. Freedom of religion is just one of our liberties under assault and preempted by authoritarians like Cooper. Business owners are being effectively deprived of their property without real due process of law, Executive orders are not due process. Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is under assault as “non-essential” gun and ammo shops are shuttered and felons are released to protect them from the virus as we are denied self-protection against them.  We have lost our right to move freely, even speak freely, at least on social media that censors coronavirus response criticisms, or to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances.

In Oregon, another judge similarly ruled the state was exceeding its legal authority by infringing on the freedom of religion:

An Oregon judge ruled today that Gov. Kate Brown’s pandemic-related executive orders exceeded her authority. The case was filed by numerous churches and people of faith who were represented by the Pacific Justice Institute.

The orders resulted in church, business, and school closings and required the citizens in Oregon to remain under virtual house arrest. The Oregon law gives the Governor broad authority in emergency situations; however, that authority is of limited duration. The Governor did not go to the legislature to seek additional time as required by law.

Circuit Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff granted a preliminary injunction to 10 churches that had sued, finding they had shown “irreparable harm” from the deprivation of the right to freely exercise their religions.  

Not overruled at this point is Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who shut down Windy City businesses and put citizens under house arrest while the “public face of the city,” as she calls herself, went to her hairstylist. Lightfoot has cornered the market on tyrannical hypocrisy:

Churchgoers defying stay-at-home initiatives amid the coronavirus pandemic could receive citations in the Chicago area.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot said last week the city was preparing to enforce restrictions meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus against houses of worship holding in-person services.

After churchgoers decided to attend services anyway on Sunday, Lightfoot said in a statement that city officials are working with law enforcement to monitor large gatherings, including ones of faith, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“The local districts are reviewing reports of large gatherings that took place today at various establishments not abiding by the stay-at-home order,” the statement said. “Following that review, the Department will issue and mail citations where necessary.”

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court recently struck down that state’s stay-at-home order as an unlawful order that exceeded the state’s authority:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the state’s stay-at-home order during the coronavirus pandemic as “unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable” after finding that the state’s health secretary exceeded her authority.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court called Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm’s directive, known as Emergency Order 28, a “vast seizure of power.”

The order directed all people in the state to stay at home or at their places of residence, subject only to exceptions allowed by Palm, the ruling says. The order, which had been set to run until May 26, also restricted travel and business, along with threatening jail time or fines for those who don’t comply.

So far such rulings and redress of grievances are limited in scope and temporary. The assault on our Constitution and our rights is deep and broad and will only be stopped by a Supreme Court ruling that our freedoms cannot be erased by an edict from a governor, mayor, or even a state health secretary. These orders are not laws passed by a legislature and even then such laws should and must pass constitutional muster. As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley observes:

“Pandemic is not a magic word that instantly negates all individual constitutional rights,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.

“A pandemic gives states a compelling state purpose in the imposition of restrictions. But when the state denies or restricts constitutional rights, it must satisfy a balancing test.”

The orders can be challenged on the basis that they’re overly broad, he said, or that they don’t properly weigh the individual restrictions against public health threats. 

Or that lockdowns have health costs themselves that constitute a compelling interest to not have them. Simply put, Americans cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and, again, executive orders do not constitute due process. There is no pandemic exception clause in the U.S. Constitution.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

09/16/20

Fed Judge Rules Pennsylvania’s Shutdown Order Unconstitutional

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: This decision has far-reaching consequences including other states with the same shutdown orders. Further, it makes those states vulnerable to class action lawsuits by business owners, churches, schools, and public gatherings of various sorts over revenue/economic loss.

***

Source:

In today’s decision in County of Butler v. Wolf (W.D. Pa.), Judge William S. Stickman IV broadly struck down the Pennsylvania shutdown orders, reasoning:

[1.] The court held that Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which ruled in favor of broad government power in an epidemic, should not be applied, and instead the government’s heightened interests in public health should be considered within the normal framework of constitutional scrutiny (e.g., in deciding whether a law is narrowly tailored to an important government interest):

Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighed against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments….

The Court has reviewed {Lindsay F. Wiley & Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: the Case Against “Suspending“ Judicial Review, 133 Harv. L. Rev. F. 179 (2020)} … and finds it both instructive and persuasive. There, the learned professors argue that Jacobson should not be interpreted as permitting the “suspension” of traditional levels of constitutional scrutiny in reviewing challenges to COVID- 19 mitigation measures…. The Court shares [these concerns] …. The Court will apply “regular” constitutional scrutiny to the issues in this case. Two considerations inform this decision—the ongoing and open-ended nature of the restrictions and the need for an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power….

The Court closes this Opinion as it began, by recognizing that Defendants’ actions at issue here were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency. But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.

There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a “new normal” where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.

[2.] The court then concluded that the limits on nonreligious gatherings (“25 persons for indoor gatherings and 250 persons for outdoor gatherings,” “specifically exempt[ing] religious gatherings and certain commercial operations”) violate the Assembly Clause. The court concluded the restrictions were content-neutral, and therefore applied intermediate scrutiny—but held that the restrictions failed this scrutiny:

Defendants’ congregate limits are not narrowly tailored. Rather, they place substantially more burdens on gatherings than needed to achieve their own stated purpose. This is not a mere supposition of the Court, but rather, is highlighted by Defendants’ own actions. While permitting commercial gatherings at a percentage of occupancy may not render the restrictions on other gatherings content-based, they do highlight the lack of narrow tailoring.

Indeed, hundreds of people may congregate in stores, malls, large restaurants and other businesses based only on the occupancy limit of the building. Up to 20,000 people may attend the gathering in Carlisle (almost 100 times the approved outdoor limit!)- with Defendants’ blessing. Ostensibly, the occupancy restriction limits in Defendants’ orders for those commercial purposes operate to the same end as the congregate gathering limits-to combat the spread of COVID-19. However, they do so in a manner that is far less restrictive of the First Amendment right of assembly than the orders permit for activities that are more traditionally covered within the ambit of the Amendment­ political, social, cultural, educational and other expressive gatherings.

Moreover, the record in this case failed to establish any evidence that the specific numeric congregate limits were necessary to achieve Defendants’ ends, much less that “[they] target and eliminate no more than the exact source of the ‘ evil’ [they] seek to remedy.” [Sam Robinson, a Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor] testified that the congregate limits were designed to prevent “mega-spreading events.” However, when asked whether, for example, the large protests—often featuring numbers far in excess of the outdoor limit and without social distancing or masks—led to any known mega-spreading event, he was unable to point to a single mega-spreading instance. (ECF No. 75, p. 155) (“I am not aware specifically. I have not seen any sort of press coverage or, you know, CDC information about that. I have not seen information linking a spread to protests.”).

Further, the limitations are not narrowly tailored in that they do not address the specific experience of the virus across the Commonwealth. Because all of Pennsylvania’ s counties are currently in the “green phase,” the same restrictions apply to all. Pennsylvania has nearly fourteen million residents across sixty-seven counties. Pennsylvania has dense urban areas, commuter communities servicing the New York metropolitan area, small towns and vast expanses of rural communities. The virus’ s prevalence varies greatly over the vast diversity of the Commonwealth—as do the resources of the various regions to combat a population proportionate outbreak. Despite this diversity, Defendants’ orders take a one-size fits all approach. The same limits apply in counties with a history of hundreds or thousands of cases as those with only a handful. The statewide approach is broadly, rather than narrowly, tailored.

The imposition of a cap on the number of people that may gather for political, social, cultural, educational and other expressive gatherings, while permitting a larger number for commercial gatherings limited only by a percentage of the occupancy capacity of the facility is not narrowly tailored and does not pass constitutional muster. Moreover, it creates a topsy-turvy world where Plaintiffs are more restricted in areas traditionally protected by the First Amendment than in areas which usually receive far less, if any, protection. This inconsistency has been aptly noted in other COVID-19 cases….

This is a plausible argument, given that the law seems to treat constitutionally protected activity worse than other activity. But I’m far from certain that it will be upheld on appeal, given courts’ general (and likely correct) tendency to give the government considerable latitude in trying to contain the disease while minimizing the economic devastation of the shutdowns.

I also think a stronger argument would have been that the restrictions don’t leave open “ample alternative channels” for expression—a separate prong of the content-neutral restriction test—especially given that the First Amendment singles out peaceable assembly as a separately protected right: other channels would be more expensive, or wouldn’t reach the same audience, or wouldn’t convey the same message. (See City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994).) I expect the challengers will make that argument on appeal, as they are entitled to do: A judgment can be defended on appeal on any basis fairly presented by the record, including one on which the trial court didn’t rely.

07/22/20

There Can Be Only One

By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

I keep up with the discussions put on by Christian groups as they consider various doctrines which they believe to be from our Savior, Jesus Christ; or on the other side of that same coin, illusions created by men in order to persuade and mislead.  Not wishing to upset those wonderful discussions I chose to simply acknowledge that I’d visited rather than leave a comment.

My long time friend Bob started off a discussion this morning, “A couple of days ago I shared an article entitled The Death Rattle of Consumer Christianity. The main point of the article was that God was allowing certain practices in the American Church to die so that a renewed Church could be birthed. I’ve also noticed in the Christian blogosphere a lot of talk about the attempt by politically motivated individuals to create a new “world order.” I believe these two things have a common goal. Both are an attempt to reign supreme over the earth. One is legitimate, the other a fraud.”

We are in agreement as there can be only one legitimate world government, the one that has the Lord, Jesus Christ at its head; any other would be a fraud, exactly as my friend has suggested.

The “New World Order” which many propose as a solution to the petty sovereignty issues, immigration, and general disorder created by having so many independent nations is in fact a step backward for all mankind.  The elitists who wish to run this socialistic order have omitted God as the source of all powers, eliminating the need for inalienable individual rights which spring from Him.

Instead, those in positions of government would take the place of God, their handing out privileges and entitlements to whomever they decide should receive them.  There would be no need for constitutional protection of so-called “rights” because there wouldn’t be any.

Going back to Bob’s opening remarks, “…God was allowing certain practices in the American Church to die so that a renewed Church could be birthed.”  I found this intriguing, so much so that it was the reason for joining this discussion; knowing full well my boldness would not be appreciated or welcomed by many.

“The renewed Church could be birthed.”, and that is exactly what has occurred.  The nations of the earth were all too corrupted for the establishment of the Lord’s Church which is why it was necessary for America to become a nation.  Not a nation owing allegiance to any earthly King; rather, a nation built on the foundations set forth in scripture, eternal laws, and principles.  Only in such a country could the Lord set in motion the necessary fertile soil that would permit His Church to be renewed.

If you’ll read our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution containing the Bill of Rights, it becomes more apparent that the Lord’s hand guided our founder’s thoughts in establishing the groundwork that would permit the freedoms necessary for religious zeal to abound.  The Great Enlightenment period with so many individuals desiring to know which denomination to join, which preacher to listen to as part of the Lord’s plan, not to have these denominations “die,” rather for this denomination which held important parts of the gospel to help usher in the Fullness of the Gospel as found in the one true Church.

Ahhhh, this is where my remarks begin to annoy some folks. They don’t want to hear about the restoration that has already taken place or that that restoration continues to take place even as I write.  “Blasphemy”, they cry while turning up their noses at such a preposterous claim.

Consider if you will those in Jerusalem at the time Jesus Christ walked the earth.  How many of them scoffed at the idea that He was the Son of God, the Chosen One of whom the Prophets in the scriptures testified would come to save us all?   Did they not crucify the Savior of the world looking off into the future for that illusive Savior?  Are they looking still?

I testify that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored Church, the only one which has been established with the authority to act in His name.  It is the structure and government which will be used by the Lord when he returns to this earth.

The Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated for the benefit of the entire world, not just for those who happen to live in America.  It is another witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, our Eternal Father.  It was written as a companion of scripture to validate what is found in the Bible and those who take the time to read these important books can have the Spirit testify of this truth.

I leave this testimony with you in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.


t-f-stern-1Self-Educated American, Senior Edi­tor, T.F. Stern is both a retired City of Hous­ton police offi­cer and, most recently, a retired self-employed lock­smith (after serving that industry for 40 plus years). He is also a gifted polit­i­cal and social com­men­ta­tor. His pop­u­lar and insight­ful blog, T.F. Sterns Rant­i­ngs, has been up and at it since January of 2005.

07/15/20

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed

By: Sam Jacobs | Ammo.com

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has Changed“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Conservatives are generally quick to point out that America is a republic, not a democracy. But what really is the difference, and are they even right?

Voting in America has changed considerably since the days of our founding. Back then, the government didn’t even print official ballots. Instead, you got ballots from the candidate who wanted your support. Sometimes voting took place in public, so everyone knew who you voted for. And, of course, the franchise was largely restricted to white, male property owners.

Now, anyone who turns 18 can vote. And the Democratic Party wants to increase ballot access by automatically registering anyone who gets a driver’s license. Democrats even pushed for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election to make voting even easier – and more open to voter fraud. But is any of this a good thing?

Indeed, it is worth considering the transformation of the United States from a Constitutional Republic, ruled by law with the input of the people, to a total democracy, where the will of the people dominates all other discussions.

A Brief History of the Franchise in America

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has ChangedOpen up your pocket Constitution and find the part where it says who can vote and who can’t. You’ll come up short. That’s because the Constitution delegates this right to the states. And while there are some amendments that, for example, say states can’t restrict the franchise on the basis of race, gender, or being over the age of 18, otherwise there is broad leeway given in terms of who can vote and who can’t.

Before the United States existed, people were still voting and there were oftentimes even more restrictions in place. Property qualifications were most common, but there was often also a religious test involved. For example, Plymouth Colony required that voters be “orthodox in the fundamentals of religion,” which would have likely excluded even Catholics from voting. Indeed, Catholics, Quakers, and Baptists were frequently forbidden from voting in early colonial elections. (Jews were forbidden from state office in Maryland until 1828, because of a state law requiring affirmation of belief in an afterlife.)

One of the first laws drafted by the new nation was a process for people to become citizens and thus be able to vote in places where citizenship was a requirement to do so – and indeed, citizenship was not a requirement in many states or colonies in the early days of America. While only “natural born” citizens can become president, naturalized citizens enjoy the full benefits of the franchise. There is still much debate as to what qualifies as a “natural born” citizen, and it’s worth noting that several recent major party presidential candidates were not born in the United States – most recently Tulsi Gabbard (who was born in American Samoa) and Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada). The Republican nominee in 2008, John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The last of these was the most problematic, as Downes v. Bidwell ruled that unincorporated territories were explicitly not the United States.

While it is easy to ascribe this to petty religious bigotry, the reason is actually somewhat more profound: The colonists and the colonial governments that they formed considered it important to only allow the franchise to people who shared their values. Thus, those with heterodox religious beliefs were not allowed to vote on the grounds that doing so would undermine both the values and the liberty of the colony.

Similarly, property holders were meant to be the main voters for the simple reason of having skin in the game. The early colonists did not want, for example, the merchant class to have an outsized say in politics because they were not tied to the land and thus not as subject to bad decisions. A shopkeeper or importer can simply sell their stock and move on to the next colony. A freeholder, working the land with his family, has far less flexibility and, the theory goes anyway, would be making more long-term decisions about what is best for the polity.

What this meant, also, is that, in places like New Jersey, women were allowed to vote until 1807, provided that they could meet the property requirement. What changed in the early 19th century, under the expansion of the franchise under Jacksonian Democracy, was that race and gender were prized more than property rights. But free blacks still had the right to vote in some Northern states until 1838.

This too was not an arbitrary distinction. Men who had been veterans of the War of 1812, or at the very least, defended their community against Indian raids, believed that they were entitled to the franchise on the basis of that service. By 1856, free white men were allowed to vote without meeting any property requirements, but five of the states still kept tax requirements (frequently a poll tax) in place. Again, this makes sense: The force of government is largely about the spending of taxes and the use of the military.

By 1856, all property requirements had been lifted, but tax requirements remained in place in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, until the 20th century. Rhode Island had what was basically a brief, low-level civil war over the question of property requirements known as the Dorr War. Indeed, anytime that post-Civil War disenfranchisement is discussed, it must include a discussion of the disenfranchisement of poor whites as well. The Battle of Athens is a fascinating tale of World War II veterans returning from battle and refusing to be shafted at the ballot box anymore.

Of the 15 Constitutional Amendments passed since the Civil War, four involve the franchise. The 15th Amendment bars states from restricting the franchise on the basis of race, the 19th from restrictions on the basis of gender, the 24th bars any tax requirements, and the 26th bars any age restrictions against those over the age of 18. Another Amendment, the 17th, allows for the direct election of senators, rather than having them elected by the respective state legislature – another expansion of pure democracy in America, though not an expansion of suffrage per se.

The previous method of electing senators, having them appointed by the respective state legislatures, was not an oversight on the part of the Founders. Rather, this was to give a voice to the state governments in the federal government. This was seen as an important safeguard against the overreach of federal power. Among other things, the Senate was a check on a power-hungry federal government seeking to put its tentacles into anything it could. It was a form of distributed power that was yet another attempt by the Founders to prevent consolidation and centralization of government.

It’s worth noting that Western states, starting with Wyoming in 1869, were granting women the right to vote, largely as an enticement to get them to move to the region, which was seriously devoid of women.

The concept of “one man, one vote” is the cornerstone of a more pure democracy. There were three decisions of the Earl Warren Supreme Court that definitively transformed the landscape of America into a democracy:

  • Baker v. Carr found that federal courts had jurisdiction over state redistricting efforts.
  • Wesberry v. Sanders found that U.S. House of Representatives districts – whose borders are determined by state governments – must be roughly equal in population.
  • Reynolds v. Sims found that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population, regardless of the chamber. This effectively means that states are not allowed to have institutions like the Senate – for example, a state government cannot give each county two seats in the state legislature if the counties do not have roughly the same population size.

Residency requirements are mostly illegal in the United States, with one-year requirements struck down in Dunn v. BlumsteinThe longest residency requirement that states are allowed to have now is 50 days.

What’s So Wrong With Democracy?

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has ChangedAll of this raises the question of what is wrong with democracy, as opposed to a Constitutional Republic? It’s a cliche that democracy is the right of 51 percent of the population to take away the toothbrushes of the other 49. The Constitution provides protection against the tyranny of the majority and one of those protections is against pure democracy.

Indeed, the Senate and Electoral College, two of the last vestiges of the anti-democratic mood that penetrated the country during Revolutionary times, provide protections to rural states to this day. Without either of these or with a Senate converted into a proportional representation body, as some have suggested, rural states are effectively political serfs for the larger urban centers.

The counter-argument presented to this is that “land doesn’t vote,” which is fair enough, but again: America was not conceived as a pure democracy where everyone had an equal say in everything. There are many layers to the onion, many tiers that prevent one group of the population from having too much say over the others. The Electoral College and the Senate allow rural states to have a voice in how the country is run, rather than being totally ruled over by people in urban centers who don’t own guns, can’t grow food, and have never met their neighbors.

It’s not a coincidence that Electoral College abolition is a particular ax ground by the left. The abolition of the Electoral College would allow for sweeping changes in American public policy championed by those currently on the leftward edge of the political spectrum. Do you want to live in a country where, for example, the voters of smaller states like Nevada, New Hampshire, and Montana are drowned out by a handful of cities on the coasts? What of medium-sized states with a number of post-industrial cities with their own concerns, just as valid as those of rural America, but entirely separate from the centers of financial, cultural, and academic power?

There’s also the small matter of the role that the media plays in shaping public opinion, as well as the role that public works projects and other government spending play in essentially buying votes. Ostensibly “undemocratic” institutions act as brakes on the manipulation of public opinion. Indeed, the Senate was specifically designed as a deliberative body that would “cool the passions” of the masses represented in the lower house, the House of Representatives.

The Primary System as a Laboratory of Democracy

The primary process for nominating presidential candidates represents an excellent example of how pure democracy has produced poorer results than a more managed and directed one.

Most Americans, particularly younger ones, don’t know that prior to the 1970s, the primary contests didn’t mean much. Rather, it was the state party conventions that held greater weight and these were largely managed by party bosses rather than directly influenced by voters. It’s not that this system of backroom wheeling and dealing never produced a total dud or stifled genuine needs for reform – of course, it did. However, looking at the roster of candidates produced by this process (i.e., two Roosevelts, a Coolidge, an Eisenhower, and a Kennedy), it’s hard to argue with the results.

What was entirely lacking was the current primary process that we have in the United States, which still boasts a very low overall turnout and lasts from approximately the fourth quarter of the year before the election sometimes all the way up until the convention. All told, the Democratic Primary cycle of 2020 had 12 debates planned, with 11 completed and the 12th not happening simply because Joe Biden said he wasn’t going to show up.

The primaries are dominated by highly motivated and often highly ideological voters. This means that a number of highly polarizing figures have made it through the modern primary process, including Barry Goldwater (1964, so a little early) and George McGovern, but also a ton of people who the party in question loved but Americans just plain didn’t like (examples of this being Walter MondaleMichael Dukakis, and Mitt Romney). This is because party bosses were much more concerned about someone who could win – and all the patronage that flowed from that – rather than someone who shared their ideological picadillo.

President Eisenhower is perhaps the gold standard of a president anointed by party bosses. Senator Robert Taft, the leading light of the ideologically conservative faction of the party, lost to the choice of the party bosses, General Dwight D. Eisenhower. While historical counterfactuals are hard to tease out, there’s little reason to believe that Senator Taft could have won a general election against President Truman or eventual nominee Senator Adlai Stevenson. This is because, while there was a big thirst to roll back the whole of the New Deal among the hardcore Republican base, there was virtually no taste for it in the American mainstream, which either liked the programs or had learned to live with them. Indeed, it is largely believed that the delegates themselves might have preferred Taft to Eisenhower – but they preferred Eisenhower to losing.

It’s worth noting that in the last two Democratic primaries, party bosses have leaned heavily on the scale against insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of, respectively, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In contrast, Donald Trump was able to coast to the nomination in 2016 without any significant organized chicanery on the part of the party bosses.

But it’s not just political parties who lose when American presidential candidates are the result of a process catering to a very small niche of the electorate. America loses also because we are incapable of having substantive, issue-driven debates that address real problems of the American people. Instead, we end up focusing much more on the personalities and cultural differences that divide the two parties – to the detriment of the entire nation.

Election Fraud in the United States

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has ChangedThere is a dispute as to whether or not there is widespread election fraud in the United States. However, there are three presidential elections that merit a brief discussion in our exploration of the franchise in America.

The 1876 Election

The election of 1876 was so controversial and potentially fraud-ridden that it was the subject of a Congressional Electoral Commission in response to a major Constitutional crisis. There were 20 electoral votes outstanding, with the Democratic candidate one shy of winning, with the 20 outstanding electoral votes all coming from states with potentially massive voter fraud. The Commission was convened by the Democratic House and the Republican Senate, with five members from each body and five from the Supreme Court of the United States.

One of the tricks in question is actually an exploit of pure democracy: In those days, there were no official ballots. Ballots or “tickets” were generally printed up by political parties or their partisans and distributed to the voters. Southern Democrats used ballots with Abraham Lincoln on them in an attempt to fool illiterate voters into voting for their slate.

“Tilden or Blood!” was a slogan at the time and Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden’s supporters declared that they had 100,000 men ready to march on the capital and install him as president if need be. A party-line vote of the Electoral Commission gave all the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, making him president. However, as a concession, the South got the end of Reconstruction and the withdrawal of all remaining federal troops.

Democrats remained unsatisfied, with the House of Representatives going as far as to pass a non-binding resolution declaring Tilden the winner. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 made the state legislature the definitive arbiter of who counted as an elector, which was the subject of Bush v. Gore, another controversial election over 100 years later.

The 1960 Election

The 1960 election was disputed as well, but not formally and officially like in 1876. The claim is this: That the Democratic Party used friendly city machines in Dallas and Illinois to win states for John F. Kennedy that he otherwise would not have won – and that would have delivered the presidency to Republican Richard Nixon.

This is not a marginal theory. Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater have stated that they believe there was fraud in the election. All told, Republicans in 11 states sought to have the vote overturned, including in Illinois and Texas. A special prosecutor charged 650 people with voter fraud, but there were no convictions.

It is unknown to what degree Nixon felt he had been cheated, but he never seriously pursued it, believing it would divide the nation and tarnish the office of the presidency.

The 2000 Election

Finally, there is the 2000 election, where chicanery is alleged to have taken place not at the ballot box, but at the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court who stopped the recount under the Equal Protection Clause because they did not approve of how the recount was being carried out. Further, a new standard could not be agreed upon because of the time frame – electors had to be selected by December 12.

This allowed a previous vote count certified by Secretary of State Katherine Harris (a Republican and Bush family ally) to stand.

Here the question was not about whether or not someone was ballot-box stuffing. No one has seriously or credibly proposed this. What was in question is how the votes were counted. This calls to mind an apocryphal quote often attributed to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin:

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Several have written that if a statewide recount were done, rather than a county-based one, that it was Vice President Al Gore who would have won. But the question here is what was the best way to count the votes. And unsurprisingly, partisans of both parties prefer the method resulting in their candidate winning.

Beyond the Theory: Why Pure Democracy Is Bad In Its Execution

Once the notion of a universal franchise enters the public vernacular, there is then no limit on who should be included. Andrew Yang became the first major-party presidential candidate to endorse lowering the voting age to 16, but others have endorsed removing age requirements for voting entirely. Indeed, there is an entire current of thought that says that citizenship shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t in some municipal elections) or even that the entire world should be allowed a say in who becomes the President of the United States.

While these might all sound like ridiculous proposals – and we agree that they are – they are the thin edge of the wedge, the tip of the spear that will eventually introduce this kind of discourse into the political mainstream and perhaps much sooner than anyone thinks. If the only criteria for who gets to vote is that you are “affected by government policy” or some such and thus entitled to a say, why not let the entire populations of France and Bangladesh and China have a vote? There is a logic to universal suffrage that does not end with America’s adult population or even at its borders.

Consider the fight against voter ID laws in the United States. When one accepts that voting is a universal right, it makes perfect sense that having or not having an ID shouldn’t be an impediment to exercising that right. A lack of voter ID laws has been tied to voter fraud. But perhaps more disturbing is the growing practice of ballot harvesting.

Ballot Harvesting

Constitutional Republic vs. Pure Democracy: How the U.S. Election Process Has ChangedThe Democratic Party likes ballot harvesting so much that they tried to insert it into the stimulus and relief bill targeted at people suffering from the effects of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak of 2020. Put simply, this is when paper ballots are collected by intermediaries between the state and the voter, then delivered en masse. If this sounds like it’s a ripe place for voter fraud to happen, that’s because it is. Ballot harvesting played a role in the do-over of the 2019 North Carolina election, where Democrats were, perhaps for the first time ever, deeply concerned with the specter of voter fraud.

Orange County, California, was home to a whopping quarter million ballots delivered on Election Day alone. In practice, ballot harvesters go around collecting ballots for people who vote for the candidate they want to win. In the case of North Carolina, there were allegations that ballots had been discarded because people voted for the “wrong” candidate.

In the wake of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak, there has been a push – mostly from Democrats – to offer mail-in ballots. These are different from absentee ballots, which are sent out to specific voters on a by-request basis. Compare this with the push for mass mail-in voting: This is just printing up a ton of ballots, sending them out, and letting everyone mail them in. There are few, if any, protections in place for preventing people from voting twice, preventing non-registered voters from voting, or preventing illegal aliens from voting. For every person who votes that shouldn’t, a legal voter has their vote canceled out or nullified.

There’s not much of a way to verify and track this process to ensure that everyone who votes is having their vote counted. But again, it is very much in keeping with the logic of “one man, one vote.” Those who espouse the ideology of a pure democracy are always looking for ways to make it easier for people to vote.

Perhaps, not coincidentally, making it easier for people to vote also opens up the door to electoral fraud.

And this is really the crux of the matter when it comes down to pure democracy: The transition to a purer democracy has coincided with greater influence among unofficial kingmakers who control the process while also consolidating greater power in Washington, D.C. In practice, this has meant favoring a bureaucratic elite who effectively act as unelected legislators. Most of the regulations put in place by the alphabet soup of federal agencies aren’t there by statute but are in fact part of powers delegated to them by the legislature who have abdicated their legislative authority.

What’s more, these unofficial kingmakers are often shadowy figures whose names (to say nothing of their intentions) are mostly unknown. These are not the traditional party bosses who were, in a sense, beholden to their people in the form of having to provide patronage and pork and other tangible results. Rather the new kingmakers of our pure democracy are the mass media, party activists, and others with no skin in the game and little in the way of public accountability. Their angle is one entirely of self-interest and not to the broader body politic, to say nothing of future generations.