Shayne Wissler
“How far into the foundations, when it comes, must the revolution penetrate?” – Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.

The Supreme Court’s Wildly Unconstitutional Ruling

December 12 2020

The Supreme Court ruling is an absurdity fitting of the times. They state “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections…”

This is a gross equivocation on the term “manner”, a complete abdication of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional duty, and worse, a judicial usurpation of the Constitution.

The Constitutional sense of the term “manner” is defined in Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” In fact, the State Legislature in question did so direct, but the Texas suit alleges that the State’s Executive and Judicial branches disregarded such direction, which would be a clear violation of the Constitution and therefore something the Supreme Court must make a determination on.

But the ruling uses the term “manner” in total disregard of the Constitution sense, as if the Constitution had said the States as monolithic entities (and not the State Legislatures) have a license to perform elections in any manner whatsoever. It therefore, in effect, usurps Congressional authority and inserts its own tacit Constitutional amendment prescribing this new sense of “manner”.

This is also a reification of the States, tacitly creating a unique and unconstitutional entity in clear violation of Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” What “Republican Form” means is that we have an Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branch, not a single monolithic entity. So this is yet another tacit judicial amendment that usurps Congress, and the People, whose sole means of disciplining their government is by way of electing their own Legislators.

Finally, the Supreme Court has now established a completely absurd and novel premise that no State has “standing” when another State violates the Constitution. But in fact, the Constitution is a contract between the States and nothing else; by virtue of its violation, all States automatically have standing, but especially so when the alleged violation has directly resulted in changing the outcome of the Presidential election.

The Supreme Court’s clear duty was to honestly judge this case on its merits. Instead, it has judicially eviscerated the Constitution. It remains to be seen whether they will recognize anyone as having “standing” here.