Under a rule of law, the rightful leadership are the ones chosen by the people, according to the Constitution, which begins with "We The People". Anybody who protests that this is not the case, and the rightful leadership has been usurped, cannot possibly be a disloyal citizen. Indeed, the question arises as to who is the insurrectionary party. Is it those who wish an HONEST accounting for the outcome of an election to choose the leadership, or those who insist that the accounting was rightful?
This is a fair question. Because that gets to the heart of the matter as to who is really in charge. That is to say, is it the people who choose the leaders, or those who are preventing that from being properly determined? A question to that has to be determined one way or another, and that way is by the law, AS WRITTEN, and prior to the election. This is all done under the Constitution, in which all officers of the government must swear an oath to defend.
If it's the leadership itself that makes this determination, as is the case that the January 6th committee wants to establish; then how can that be trusted? It is an axiom of law that someone cannot be the judge of one's own case. The challenge before us is whether or not the people actually are in charge, or has that authority been usurped? One way to determine that is not to allow the officers of the government be the judge of their own case. There must be a way to answer this question, and the law provides for that. The states judge who are to be the leadership by running its own elections. If they do not have this authority, then that authority is relinquished to those who stand to benefit from judging their own case. That would be officers of the Federal government itself. To protest that this was not rightfully executed is a fair question. The January 6th committee cannot be a fair judge of that because they are actually in judgement of their own case.
The Vice President at the time, Mike Pence, decided to allow the proceedings to go forward. The count of the electoral votes proceeded even though there were questions about the accuracy of the counting of the votes at the state level. The Supreme Court refused to get involved. That was unfortunate because Pennsylvania, and some other states, changed the manner in which votes were to be cast, without the state legislatures' approval. This should have been declared unconstitutional. The executive cannot usurp the state legislatures' authority on the way electors are to be chosen. Mike Pence did the wrong thing. He could have asked that each state legislature in question, make a determination if the electoral count was lawful and accurate. This is done in jury trials, if requested, that a polling of the jury is done. Everyone in the various state legislatures would be required to go on record as their opinion of the controversy. If this cannot be determined at that time, then their electoral votes should not be counted.
There is a real problem here. A definite outcome is necessary, but how is this to be determined? Well, at the state level. If the states cannot or will not decide, then they have forfeited their duty, and their votes in the electoral college.
It looks like forfeiture explains this case. Also, to protest that is not sedition. To charge anybody with sedition in this case is tantamount to disregarding the will of the people, and usurping the government of the people in favor to a self-interested tyranny of the few. The people are not in service to the state, but the reverse. The January 6th committee wants to establish that no dissent is to be tolerated at the pain of treason. This is clearly adverse to the Constituion itself. Nobody has crowned them with permanent power. The right to remove the officers of the government is a right that the government cannot revoke without turning the concept of the a self-government on its very head.
No comments:
Post a Comment