Former Judge Burke: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

.
See: Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas’ election suit

1610917736619.png

Former Judge Kevin S. Burke

Retired Judge Burke, in his desire to condone the undermining of our federal elections in which a number of States engaged in corrupted election practices, quotes Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon as succinctly saying , “The relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that states are sovereigns, free to govern themselves. The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners.”

Of course, both Burke and Gov. Gordon suspiciously ignore that our federal Constitution does indeed provide a number of agreed upon orders with respect to federal elections. Aside from the order contained in the “Elector’s clause” of our Constitution, that “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 to which the State may be entitled in the Congress …” etc., see e.g.:

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides a penalty for an abridgement of the right to vote.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

By the 24th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And so, both Burke and Gov. Gordon’s assertion, that “The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose their electors than they do ordering the People how to choose their dinners”, is a gross misrepresentation of our nation’s rule of law.

So, what actually constitutes an abridgement of the right to vote, with respect to a federal election? That is the fundamental question to be answered ___ a question which our Supreme Court refused to address when failing to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

If a State’s employees who count federal election results are free to count illegal ballots ___ ballots which do not meet the State’s adopted voting requirements and restrictions ___ would that constitute an “abridgement” of the federally protected right to vote? The answer to this question is an obvious resounding ‘Yes”, as each illegal ballot counted in a state would in effect cancel out other Citizen’s legally casts ballots in that State, and thus be an infringement.

But there is a more important observation concerning the allowance by a state to engage in illegal and corrupted voting practices with respect to federal elections, as distinguished from elections which are local. Allowing Illegal voting practices and corruption with regard to federal elections in one state, or a number of states, creates a cognizable injury and threat to the remaining states and to our very democratic system of government!

Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States, her democratic system of government, and her citizens.

As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court ___ when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).

Former Justice Burke, as witnessed by his absurd commentary, is an indication of how shallow minded thinking is eroding the rule of law and the miracle created by our Founding Fathers.

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

1 Like

So if California had an issue with how your state voted in a presidential election, and decided to roll up and tell your state what’s what, you’d be ok with it?

2 Likes

Give it a freaken break! :roll_eyes:

If you have some objection to the OP, quote that portion and then express you disagreement. If you can’t or won’t do that, there is no sense in you posting in the thread.

JWK

Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

1 Like

The obvious answer is “no”. If another state chooses to count illegal ballots, that does not abridge someone else’s right to vote. If, because of how the electoral college works, a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times as much as a vote in Florida, is the voter in Florida’s right to vote abridged?

I appreciate your novel opinion, however, considering that we act under the “rule of law”, our federal and state constitutions, when those rules are violated with respect to a federal electoral process, not only is there an abridgement of the right to vote, but, the entire United States, her citizens, and their very democratic system of government is threatened!

As succinctly stated by a noteworthy Justice of our Supreme Court eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” _ __ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

JWK

When it comes to healthcare, our communist/socialist democrat revolutionary leaders have no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of millions of foreign nationals who have invaded America’s borders.

1610917736619-png

That’s an unfortunate picture.

Yeah what do all these judges really know about the Constitution anyways?
:man_facepalming:

3 Likes

Your argument makes no logical sense. A state has a set number of electors regardless to how they choose those electors. How does the internal process of one state lead to the abridgement of a person in another state’s right to vote. How does that manifest? It doesn’t change their ability to get to the polls and cast a vote and it doesn’t change the value of their vote.

Your innuendo is an old, tired and stupid debating trick. Perhaps you use it because you cannot refute what I have posted.

JWK
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Your post is a non sequitur to what you quoted from me.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

You bet Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have won. Every parasitic rat found their way to the voting booth to vote to get their piece of “free government cheese”, just as they did in Venezuela and Cuba, and now suffer the poisonous consequences of their actions.

How?

How does the internal process of one state lead to the abridgement of a person in another state’s right to vote. How does that manifest? It doesn’t change their ability to get to the polls and cast a vote and it doesn’t change the value of their vote.

:roll_eyes:
Justice Douglas answered your question in THIS POST

JWK


“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”
___ Justice Story

Actually he doesn’t. That case wasn’t even about presidential elections. So again I ask you, not Douglas, how does the internal process of one state lead to the abridgement of a person in another state’s right to vote. How does that manifest? It doesn’t change their ability to get to the polls and cast a vote and it doesn’t change the value of their vote.

Cancels a legal vote with an illegal one.

2 Likes

Not really. If PA counts some illegally cast ballots and that gives the state electors to Biden, how does that abridge a voter in TX’s right to vote vs if PA state law allowed the state legislature to choose electors regardless of the popular vote in the state and the pop vote was for Trump but the state legislature chose Biden?

Well for one thing, legal precedent is, you can’t hold a vote and then have the legislature decide, it’s one or the other.

But how does that abridge the right to vote for a voter in TX if this is happening in PA? If there’s a legal way for PA to change state election law so that the legislature can choose who gets the state’s electoral votes vs some illegal shenanigans happening in the sate, what difference does it make to the voter in TX?

The legislature choosing today would not be tolerated. So that’s off the table in terms of relevance. Again, pretty simple concept, an illegal vote cancels a legal one.

Doesn’t matter what would be tolerated. Constitution says the state can decide how to choose its electors. So how does that change things?

In PA, sure. But an illegal vote in PA doesn’t cancel a legal vote in TX. In fact, a vote in TX is worth more than a vote in PA thanks to the electoral college.

Exactly! On a state level, those who have had their legal vote canceled by an illegal vote, have had an abridgement via a cancelation of their vote.

Additionally, as noted in How the Supreme Court Caused the Riot at the Capitol

“The question was not how Pennsylvania conducted “its” election, as the Court wrongly characterized the issue. The allegations went to the constitutional legitimacy of election procedures in a presidential election in which voters in both Texas and Pennsylvania participated. If one state may illegally manipulate votes in a presidential election, the influence of all the other states that do play by the rules is undermined. The Court was essentially saying that one team has no interest in whether the other team is cheating.”

Indeed, if a particular state, say Pennsylvania, cheats by cancelling out the votes of a particular candidate, its tainted Electoral College vote then has the effect of canceling out another State’s Electoral College vote.

Justice Douglas was absolutely spot on when he wrote: when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain”

image

JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!