SHOWDOWN: More States, Trump Campaign Join Texas Lawsuit Over Unconstitutional Voter Rules Changes

Written by Wes Walker on December 9, 2020

If SCOTUS hoped they could just close their eyes and wish this Gordian Knot away — as some suggest they did with the PA case — it got a lot harder with more states joining the lawsuit.

There is no way to go home without SOMEBODY claiming they had their votes disenfranchised.

It’s not just Texas anymore. Somewhere between 5 and 10 states are now expected to join the lawsuit that Texas has filed against these swing states. The President’s legal team has joined it as well.

The interesting detail about this particular case is it can’t be stonewalled by State Courts, because this case would not pass Go, but would go directly to SCOTUS.

Col. Allen West joined Steve Bannon Tuesday evening on The War Room. Allen West, the Republican Party Texas state leader, went on to discuss today’s Texas lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court.

West told Steve Bannon that Louisiana joined the lawsuit on Tuesday afternoon.

Louisiana AG Jeff Landry announced earlier this afternoon that Louisiana is joining in on the Texas lawsuit filed yesterday against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over irregularities and lawlessness in the conduct of the 2020 election.

Allen West told Steve Bannon, “I think you’re going to see ten states sign on to this petition and lawsuit. I know as you said Louisiana just came on board.” —Spectator

Changes made to the electoral rules were made in open defiance of the existing rules set out in law by the State legislatures. This was done deliberately and systematically by Biden-aligned lawyers to grant their party a perceived electoral advantage, and consistently made access to votes MORE lax than what was established for existing electoral laws.

These changes, made by election officials, Governors, and state courts sometimes facilitated regulations that state legislatures had already heard, considered, and rejected.

Why is that an issue? Well, the problem there is that — according to this little document called the Constitution — the state legislature, and the state legislature ALONE can set the rules that govern elections. This even came up for debate in the drafting process, and there is no way in HELL they would have entrusted any other body — including judges — with having this power. Why? Simple — this is the body most directly accountable to the citizens of each state.

The question at hand is whether it is constitutional to consider votes cast in the 2020 election that were — by design, no less! — cast according to rules that were in direct conflict with electoral law as written.

Either way SCOTUS rules — or even worse, if they fail to take up the case — someone is going to be unhappy with the result.

The Left wants the case thrown out because they desperately want their guy to win.

Their argument will be that they can’t negate all of these votes that were turned in late, or have no signature matching, or were cast as mail-in ballots by people who do not meet the existing legal criteria for vote-by-mail. There is also the not-insignificant matter of equality under the law where Democrat-heavy regions were given opportunities to ‘cure’ their vote that similar Republican-heavy regions were not.

The left would call such a negation ‘disenfranchisement’ and would cry bloody blue murder about the result. If SCOTUS says the votes don’t count and the election results in the named states should not stand, they claim we will have created a constitutional crisis.

But that ignores the fact that we already have a Constitutional crisis.

If votes that were explicitly not valid according to the rule of law as written by the one body with the authority to define it are treated as valid, and changes the election, this acceptance of legally-invalid votes into the total count dilutes the value of those votes which carefully followed the established rules.

There is one other option.

The court could recognize that, according to the explicit wording of the Constitution, there has been a usurpation of powers, causing harm to the process, and they can instruct the same state legislatures which hold this power in the first place to figure out what an appropriate remedy for this situation should be.

If SCOTUS tries to duck and dodge through this one and get through without giving an opinion, that would effectively be the death knell for ultimate Constitutional authority resting in the hands of a state legislature.

Governors, lawyers, and election officials can nibble away at the edges all they like, and SCOTUS will, in practice and precedent if not in fact, have stricken that clause entirely from the Constitution.

Check out ClashRadio for more wit and wisdom from ClashDaily’s Big Dawg. While you’re at it, here’s his latest book:

If Masculinity Is ‘Toxic’, Call Jesus Radioactive

Much of the Left loathes masculinity and they love to paint Jesus as a non-offensive bearded woman who endorses their agenda. This book blows that nonsense all to hell. From the stonking laptop of bestselling author, Doug Giles, comes a new book that focuses on Jesus’ overt masculine traits like no other books have heretofore. It’s informative, bold, hilarious, and scary. Giles has concluded, after many years of scouring the scripture that, If Masculinity Is ‘Toxic’, Call Jesus Radioactive.