There is a profound background to the fraud in the 2020 election. So, why has the United States, the “City on the Hill”, come to this point? This is a serious subject that requires American introspection and thoughtfulness. The point of this article is that the federal Supreme Court has its share of responsibility in this process.
In 2013, the Federal Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s law requiring proof of identity to register to vote. As Dan Farley, chairman of the Tea Party Phoenix Metropolitan Council, put it, this eroded voter integrity and deprived the election of a key protection.
In 2002, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) introduced a national voter registration by mail form through which people can register to vote. To register using this federal form, people simply check the box that they are U.S. citizens; they do not need any proof. (Curiously, in contrast, in Arizona, for example, voters in state and local government elections are required to prove that they are residents of that state and citizens of the United States.)
In life, you have to show your ID to cash a check, and you have to show your ID to check out a book at the library; so why wouldn’t you need it for a general election? If your ballot is stolen or miscounted by a machine, or if a dead person votes, or because these federal forms are eroding voter integrity, how can you say with confidence that we are not in tyranny?
Nothing is more critical to a republic than the integrity of its elections. Right now, there are more states that don’t verify citizenship than there are states that do. This is appalling. Shouldn’t the Federal Supreme Court reflect on this and remedy it immediately? For example, determining federal standards for election integrity. Actually, it’s very simple, starting with federal (voter registration) forms and verifying citizenship, as Dan Farley, Chairman of the Tea Party Phoenix metro, puts it.
The current scale of fraud in the 2020 election is so massive and the evidence so overwhelming that it cannot be avoided by anyone in their right mind, except for those who are determined to turn a blind eye and “pretend to be asleep”.
The 2020 election fraud reflects and signifies, not just an election dispute, but an extremely serious constitutional crisis, arguably the most serious since the Civil War, concerning the future direction of the United States: to defend the federal constitution, or to destroy it? Will it make America great again, or will it slide into the abyss of ultra-leftism (socialism)? Do we defend the sovereignty and independence of the United States, or do we allow the Chinese Communist Party to control the United States?
So, in terms of the magnitude of the fraud, the far-reaching impact and the intensity of the confrontation in the 2020 election, the involvement of the Federal Supreme Court is unavoidable. President Trump has said that the lawsuit will go to the Federal Supreme Court.
Indeed, in the constitutional design of the Founding Fathers, and in the American constitutional system, the federal Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to play a unique role. As the highest judicial body, it is the responsibility of the Federal Supreme Court to ensure the legitimacy of the election process and the accuracy and fairness of the election results.
However, confronting the fraud in the 2020 election has its own difficulties for the Federal Supreme Court. This difficulty is not primarily due to the complexity of the case, nor to external factors, but to the fact that the Federal Supreme Court itself, i.e., the “liberal” mindset, is blocking a return to traditional American values.
Robert G. Natelson, a former professor of constitutional law, in his essay “Even With Justice Barrett, We Don’t Really Have a Conservative Supreme Court” (Even With Justice Barrett, We Don’t Really Have a Conservative Supreme Court), wrote, “The Supreme Court is not really conservative. Conservative Supreme Court), rightly points out that while conservatives are celebrating the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, they should not believe media opinion that we have a “conservative Supreme Court. Or the conservative justices would form a “6-3 conservative majority”.
It is well known that the Warren Court (1953-1969), headed by the 14th Chief Justice Earl Warren, ushered in the “liberal” era of the federal Supreme Court. Since then, there have been the so-called “conservative” Burger Court (1969-1986), the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005), and the Roberts Court (2005-present), but they are not. For example, in 1973, the Federal Supreme Court, in its Roe v. Wade decision, recognized a woman’s right to abortion, in opposition to conservative beliefs.
A survey of the Court’s actual decisions reveals that a “conservative bloc” does not exist; rather, the liberal justices have formed a liberal-activist bloc.
It is true that the personal legal beliefs of each Supreme Court justice are not equivalent to the legal judgments he or she makes in cases; however, it is impossible for the justices not to feel the confrontation of values behind the fraud in the 2020 election. The decision of the Federal Supreme Court, which first intervened in the election in 2000, was controversial both internally and socially.
Thus, the seriousness of the 2020 election fraud combined with the prudence of the Supreme Court (e.g., avoiding political issues), the legal technicalities of judicial adjudication, and the current state of social division in the United States, among other factors, made the Supreme Court hesitant to intervene; for example, the Trump camp twice asked the Supreme Court to review its intervention, but they refused.
The Supreme Court is also at a crossroads in the face of fraud in the 2020 election, which is indeed an “election” that no one, including the Supreme Court, can escape.
However, I am still cautiously optimistic about the positive choice of the Federal Supreme Court. This is not because three of the nine justices of the Federal Supreme Court were appointed by President Trump. Rather, it is because the positive factors are picking up in the whole United States and the whole world, otherwise, how could Trump be miraculously elected president in 2016?
It is true that the American legal system has been “legitimized and normalized by the devil” since the 20th century, especially since the second half of the 20th century (see Chapter 10 of the book “The Devil Rules Our World” by the editors of Nine Commentaries); however, the positive elements, which can be subtracted, have never been absent from the American legal system. And the federal Supreme Court has been part of the vast journey to return America to its traditional values since President Trump’s administration.
In his book The Five Thousand Year Leap, which is recommended as a must-read for all high school and university students, W. Cleon Skousen describes 28 founding principles of the United States, the first of which is “The True Nature of Natural Law. The first one is “The True Meaning of Natural Law.” In the origins of Western legal thought, natural law is the rule of conduct set down by the Creator, and only by following natural law can there be just human relations. The United States was founded on godliness and morality.
These 28 founding principles, the first of which is “The True Nature of Natural Law,” are America’s most valuable assets. The time has come to dust off these jewels. What history demands of the Federal Supreme Court is to rebuild the relationship between law and faith, to cleanse America of legal mutations, and to return to the spirit of the law.
The trial of fraud in the 2020 election is an excellent opportunity to do just that.
The U.S. rule of law and constitutional design can be said to have melted the essence of human civilization.The Federal Supreme Court Building, built in 1935, has a dozen statues of people on its lintel, the three most prominent of which are Moses, Thoreau and Confucius, with Moses in the middle and Confucius and Thoreau on either side of Moses. The profound meaning of this is something that deserves to be deeply appreciated by the justices of the Federal Supreme Court, and by every legal person.
Recent Comments