Supreme Court case#16-1464 asks the Court to void the 2016 election due to Russian Interference. Like the first case, brilliantly and beautifully written by Jeroll Sanders, this case is based on Article IV Section 4 of the constitution, which requires that the federal or national government protect the states from foreign interference. The attack on the election was like a foreign invasion, and these methods continue. We have barely begun to realize what is occurring and put a stop to the illegal and unethical things being done on the internet to control politics. Oh, you are surprised that such things occur, or will be done if not opposed or prevented?
Attorney Mark Small of Indiana has written the Revived case, and bought in some more comprehensive arguments as to why the Supreme Court is the only recourse likely to be available, and why they have the power and to void an election and the duty to void this one. Between points 47 and 60, he is especially brilliant. Having demonstrated that impeachment is unlikely because the also likely helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, Mr. Small notes the opinion of the Founders, as in Federalist 1, about party, and the “members of the Electoral College are not independently selected as the framers had anticipated, but are chosen by the same process” selected by the political parties. The electoral College, as discussed in Federalist 68, was to be the last stop to prevent “foreign cabals” from afflicting us with a tyranny or tyrannical executive for their own advantage. The founders set up our voting for slates of electors, people thought most capable, who would then elect the president. Their explicit intention is that the electors not be chosen from pre-existing bodies, such as political parties. The Russian corruption of the Republican Party is all that was required for Putin to select our president for us, for his advantage and not ours, and they did this by effecting the vote in subtle ways throughout the Primaries. They an Trump up the flagpole, and everyone kept saying, well, he won the election….such is our reverence for the electoral process. They ran Trump up the flagpole, and all the Republicans saluted. The electors were chosen by party, and in 25 States were told that they were legally bound, just because the unconstitutional laws binding them have not been challenged yet. The explicit intention of the founders, as shown in Federalist 68, is that they be able to prevent a tyrant, and it is obvious: say one elected were revealed, between the election and the inauguration, to be an ax murderer. Or say he were simply revealed, whether by ignorance or intention, to be in effect a traitor? Similarly, those who would like to abolish the electoral college, thinking it a vestige like the appendage little toe, have likely not read the Federalist papers.
It is similarly obvious that the Supreme Court has the power to void this election. The alternative is to say that such a thing could occur and the Supreme Court could have nothing to say about the fundamental constitutional structure of elections. The Court and the constitution assumes that elections are, as said in the Yarbrough decision, free of bribery and corruption. The president derives his legitimacy from the Constitution, of which the Supreme Court is the fundamental interpreter. Thee is some question as to whether the president must always obey the Court, as raised by Andrew Jackson, but the powers of the president are only to execute laws enacted by Congress, and the Supreme Court determines whether those laws are constitutional. In our last flirtation with tyranny, Jackson simply defied the decision of John Marshall that he could not, and enacted a national sin, the trail of tears. It is in fact precisely the Supreme Court that has the office of voiding the election, and it is likely that the Congress and the rest of the nation will obey the decision, as the president will no longer have legitimacy.