Consider the Language of Ex Parte Yarbrough (1885), and Apply It to the Supreme Court Itself, (Which Has Article IV.4)

   It is of course difficult to base the revote case on precedent, because, (duh) the circumstance is literally unprecedented. But the language of the Yarbrough case, in which Yarbrough and others were convicted of intimidating a citizen from voting for a member of Congress in violation of  federal legislation, might well make one think that a foreign actor cannot turn a presidential election without the Supreme Court itself having something to say about the matter. In Yarbrough, the issue is whether congress has the power to punish violations of election laws under the Constitution, but we believe that the statements to the effect that the Constitution ASSUMES elections free of “violence, corruption or fraud” amounts to a precedent that pertains to the present case, #16-1464, to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference.

   Justice Miller states:

The idea that Congress has no power to secure elections from violence, corruption, or fraud by making appropriate laws is startling. The proposition that every power of Congress must be expressly granted in the Constitution has never been adhered to by this court. The Constitution itself recognizes this inherent inability to put into words all derived powers when it gives Congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry out its functions.

 Another objection was advanced, that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not dependent upon the Constitution, but upon the law of each state, respectively. Even if that were true, the election would still have to be free from bribery and corruption. However, the right to vote for a member of Congress does flow from the Constitution, for the Constitution adopts the qualifications of the state for electing the members of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. therefore, the right does not depend exclusively on the law of the state.

   It is essential that a government such as ours have within its constitutional framework the authority to provide against these evils, or it will soon be at the mercy of combinations of brute force.

   While there are Federal statutes prohibiting interference with the right to vote, the execution of those statutes is now in the power of those benefiting from the corruption of the 2016 election. See my Amicus Brief (at 777) and previous blogs for an account of what happens when a citizen calls the Federal office to learn what these statutes might be, and that was before the inauguration.

Note* They told me to go read Tik Nat Han. So I did!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Consider the Language of Ex Parte Yarbrough (1885), and Apply It to the Supreme Court Itself, (Which Has Article IV.4)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s