We do regret to disappoint the false news and the narrative of complete misinformation fed by national media, always eager to “copy and paste” the news from The New York Times and the Washington Post: no, Joe Biden is not the President-elect from the USA just yet (and I am confident that he lost, and will lose, very badly).
None electoral results have been certified so far and the election by the electoral college will only take place on December, 14th. Until then, there will still be a lot of news, twists and turns. When many claimed that accusing the extreme left (today there is no moderate left, as the facts, on a global scale, confirm) of wanting to tear down the Constitution, of violating the most fundamental individual rights and civil liberties was just rhetorical exaggeration – everyone can now verify the accuracy of such accusations.
After the creation of media narrative about Joe Biden’s victory, the media are even deepening the narrative of “ President Joe Biden ”, treating him as if the Democrat was already in office – while vowing revenge on everyone who supported and served the Trump Administration.
As for the announcement of advances in the Chinese Communist Party’s virus vaccine discovery, just days after the media declared Biden as “President-elect, confirming what President Trump mentioned weeks before election day, not a word (Ah, and remember that the media and social media have accused President Trump of spreading false news then about the discovery of na efficient and safe vacine, as well as duly therapeutics … it is now clear how false the news advanced by the President of the USA was – media should be ashamed of themselves).
And regarding the fact that the USA is breaking records economically, doing much better than Europe and being an example for the world, with historical GDP growth and unemployment falling in the middle of the pandemic, especially among the poorest classes. vulnerable – not a single reference in the national media, perhaps because “CNN” and “The New York Times” also decided to hide or to give it as a fact with little relevance. As it is well known, national media do not report what happens in the USA; they just report what CNN says is going on in the U.S.
For now focusing our attention on the legal issue, it is important to explain to our readers the real motivation of the ongoing legal proceedings, countering the misinformation of Portuguese and European media in general.
First, it is important to distinguish: the lawsuits presented by President Trump’s campaign do not all have the same object – some refer to irregularities that occurred during the electoral process, with fraud in the voting ballot and legal flaws in the composition of the voters’ college; another question , also very relevant, concerns a question of constitutionality.
This is the case of the lawsuit presented to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) referring specifically to the state of Pennsylvania: here, in addition to electoral fraud, the conformity with the US Constitution is discussed following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to allow counting of votes received after election day, November 3.
What is at stake here?
The US Constitution does not intensively regulate the electoral process; this is a competence, by express constitutional determination, of each state.
However, Section 4 of Article I of the US Constitution (the so-called “Election Clause”) prescribes that “the deadlines, venues and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives must be fixed in each state by the respective legislator (“ state legislature ”)”. Now, how should “state legislature” be interpreted here?
SCOTUS has interpreted this expression as referring to whoever holds legislative power in each state, as well as certain mechanisms of the so called direct democracy.
One certainty, however: the courts are not included in the aforementioned constitutional provision; the judiciary is excluded from the normative scope of the “state legislature”. Hence: courts cannot rewrite state election laws.
In Pennsylvania, the electoral law stipulates that votes must be received by 8:00 pm on election day (which is, by constitutional imperative, a single national day). What happened was that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, while recognizing that the state’s electoral law is clear and does not allow the delay of mail-in ballots reception and that the state legislature expressly refused to extend the vote receiving period , decided in favor of this deadline extension, based on a vague principle, without any legal basis.
It is a typical case of illegitimate judicial activism, because it is unconstitutional. Courts are not state legislatures; hence, in the light of Section 4 of Article I of the US Constitution, votes received after 8:00 pm on November 3 cannot be counted. Therefore Justice Samuel Alito ordered the Pennsylvania Secretary of State to separate the votes received before and after that time.
In fact, there was already a preliminary decision by SCOTUS on this matter – the Court allowed, in his ruling Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Kathy Boockvar, that the state of Pennsylvania received votes until three days later, claiming that a preliminary decision contrary, so close to the elections, could cause chaos (!) In the electoral process (decisive was the vote of Chief Justice Roberts, conservative, who , according to our interpretation, relied on the polls and thought that President Trump was going to lose by a large margin in Pennsylvania, not wanting to risk paying the political price of any confrontation with Democrats….).
More important than the decision is Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito: in this, the Justices make it clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the appropriate remedies from the Court to restore the situation in accordance with the Constituion.
Only the ” Pennsylvania General Assembly ” could change the electoral law – the issue of adapting the electoral law, given the context of combating COVID-19, was discussed there: the delay in votes casting deadline was rejected.
Hence, SCOTUS maintains its authority to overcome the decision of the state court, because it is unconstitutional – proving that three judges understand that “state legislature” is only the legislative body, clearly excluding the court here. Justice Kavanaugh has the same understanding – he is very clear and assertive, quoting Bush v. Gore: courts cannot rewrite the electoral laws defined by the state legislatures, let alone “second-guessing” the merits of the options of the state legislature.
This means that there are four judges who consider that the votes received after 8:00 pm on 3 November are illegal votes, which cannot be counted. Do not forget that, this time, there will be one more element to decide: Justice Amy Coney Barret, appointed by President Trump weeks ago, and who is even more originalist than Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.
She is an orthodox student of the late Justice Scalia – as we know, Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of what is “state legislature” for the purposes of Section 4 of Article I of the US Constitution is unambiguous: it only covers the legislative assembly of each state , given the text, history and structure of the constitutional text.
So, we have a more than likely majority of five judges in favor of the unconstitutionality of the Pennsylvania court decision. Consequence: votes received after 8 pm will be invalidated – given that Joe Biden achieved the statistical miracle of getting 100% of voting by mail, the democrat will see his electoral score drop significantly.
And given that President Trump was ahead of Biden before counting those votes, it is very likely that the 20 delegates from Pennsylvania will be assigned to President Trump.
Like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada are still at stake, due to the major blatant irregularities there in the electoral process, if President Trump succeeds in winning two of these states, or if fraud in Michigan and / or Wisconsin is demonstrated, President Trump will duly be re-elected President of the USA.
As you can see, at this moment, everything is up for grabs- and there are still excellent chances that President Trump will be re-elected, even in the face of this coup d’état disguised as an electoral process (as Kenneth Starr described it so well).
Quoting Professor John Yoo’s words, President Trump is the “Defender in Chief” of the US Constitution: unlike others more fearful and much more evasive, the current President of the USA will defend the sacred self-government of the American people.
The anti-American, Chinese-globalist elite did everything to kill the American dream; now they want to kill American democracy.
President Trump will not leave: on January 20, in Washington DC, Donald J. Trump swore “to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. So help him the God!
This is the biggest attack on the US Constitution since a long time. This attack cannot pass unscathed; this attak will not pass unscathed.