By now, more and more people are, thankfully, starting to realize that nothing much adds up about our “Corona” experience, and in particular, that our interventions consistently made things worse. Don’t believe me? Africa, with 6% vaccination, was over Covid long ago,...
The Constitution Will Win the Election for President Trump
Over the last several days since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted not to hear the lawsuit filed by Texas, many have asked me to explain first what actually happened with SCOTUS and their decision not to hear the Texas case. And secondly, what’s next, and if there is a strategy for Trump to win?
The U.S. Constitution never granted SCOTUS the authority for deciding an Election. That authority lies in the House of Representatives to be addressed on January 6. There is “no higher or final authority” than the state legislatures when it comes to elections. Again, not even the Supreme Court has the final say in this, believe it or not. That’s a fact.
I believe President Trump knew the case would get thrown out, and here is why:
1) One of Trump’s lawyers is Mark Levin’s wife. Those of us who follow internal presidential politics and those who have people on the inside know that the Levins are leading authorities on Constitutional law, as are several others on the Trump legal team.
2) Many other Constitutional attorneys and Constitutional scholars knew this before the SCOTUS lawsuit was even filed.
Why is this important? The Texas filing was weak. Their argument was feeble, so weak that both Levins and the President’s other attorneys would have told President Trump days ago that this case wasn’t going to get heard. In fact, Mark Levin did say that it would not get heard on his radio show, and he was right.
Supreme Court Justice Alito was right in his decision. He argued that Texas’s state wasn’t as serious about a resolution as they pretended to be. In fact, it would have set a horrible precedent to accept the case based on how it was written and presented.
Justice Alito stated that just as in Arizona vs. California 589 U.S., where they disputed over the distribution of the water from the Colorado River, the actions of one state could not disenfranchise the actions of another.
The point is⏤Texas cannot say they were wronged because they voted for Trump, and Pennsylvania voted for Biden, even if their election laws were illegal. One state cannot dictate another state’s actions; otherwise, we would have precedence for states’ individuality. Further, Texas was not a grieved or injured state in this election.
What would be next? California suing Nevada for having more favorable tax breaks, drawing California businesses to register there instead of California, disenfranchising the other taxpayers and programs in California that need the tax dollars?
In the legal process, the “accuser” has the greatest amount of pressure in the case. The accused is innocent by default, so all of the pressure of proving their side⏤rides on the accuser. Simultaneously, if the Judge throws the accuser’s case out with prejudice, the accuser cannot bring that complaint up again.
What I’m saying is the “greatest risk” to a case is to become the prosecutor. As a matter of fact, it’s easier to ‘defend’ yourself than it is to ‘prove’ that the person you are accusing ‘the accused’ is guilty. Whoever brings the case first runs the highest risk of losing before they even have a chance to fight. Why is this important? Because President Trump stands a better chance of winning this as a defendant than he does as an accuser.
Now comes the good part… President Trump does not need the courts to win. He only needs the “state legislatures” to do their jobs. Of course, if he gets a SCOTUS hearing, so be it⏤that’s just icing on the cake. Now, let me explain to you what’s about to happen.
SCOTUS ruled to not hear the first case. SCOTUS may or may not hear the second resubmitted case. If Texas refiles as the SCOTUS recommended. Either way, it will not change the outcome.
Note that the state legislatures will likely not be too happy about this. They may feel as if they have been disenfranchised, and either sometime this week, and more so on January 6th (when Congress counts the votes), the state legislatures will CHANGE their certifications to President Trump; i.e., those four states included in the original Texas lawsuit to the SCOTUS, and likely, even Arizona and Nevada.
Certainly, this will cause an internal legal battle within the states. But under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, the state legislatures have the final say on who they want to certify as the winner of their states. This will undoubtedly anger the governors of the affected states⏤who have all “illegally certified,” mind you, and the states that illegally passed state laws that strip the state legislatures of their Article 2, Section 2 of the constitutional authority. The states will say, “we have the right. We are not backing down.” I expect the State AG’s will say ‘see you in court.’
Now comes that ‘second scenario’ that I mentioned. Understand the SCOTUS is between a rock and a hard spot. The SCOTUS does not have the authority to tell the state legislatures to ignore the Constitution and follow Federal law. Remember, because the Constitution automatically overrides federal law. So, they can do one of two things:
1) Take the case, and no matter what they ruled, the state legislatures can ignore it since they have Constitutional rights.
2) The SCOTUS can do what I thought they would end-up doing, throw the case out. The SCOTUS was able to justify further throwing the lawsuit out. Again, in summary, SCOTUS rejected the Texas case because Texas filed their case as a “motion for leave to file a bill of complaint” and because However, SCOTUS “signals to Texas and the other states that if they file their cases as a “motion to file the bill of complaint,” then their cases will be heard.
As a result, you cannot say the SCOTUS was politicized since they threw out both cases. But in throwing out the case, they legitimized the state legislature’s decisions. With that, President Trump wins.
But what if they take the case after the state of Texas re-files the lawsuit? Remember when I said it’s harder to win as an accuser than a defendant? Certainly, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania (for example) will have to explain why and how any Federal law can override the Constitution. He can’t.
With that, I’m betting five of those Justices will disagree with that, and they can literally cite the Constitution as precedence and final authority. Hence, President Trump wins. I believe that the SCOTUS will keep out of this for the sake of not showing partiality.
But if they DO get involved, it will be after January 6th where a Constitutional crisis will exist, and then they will need to step in and settle the matter in three possible ways.
1) Ignore the complaints. President Trump wins.
2) Take the case, invalidate the Election, give it to the state legislatures to vote. Again, President Trump wins, as we have a state majority of 30.
3) Take the case, order a nationwide audit, and recertify all the massive widespread fraud. President Trump wins.
In the end, President Trump will win. You can roll these dice as many times as you want.
The Constitution will win this election for President Trump.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.