13 Comments
User's avatar
Dawn Pegis's avatar

Bravo and THANK YOU! May your argument be proclaimed more widely. May more leaders have real understanding of Constitutional principles.

Justin. Hart's avatar

My opinion here , this is why Democrats have spent 50+ years changing the American school system . If you cannot read the Constitution then you cannot interpret it properly ! Excellent analysis of how the election + electors work . Just remember our original documents are written in cursive writing !

Frank's avatar

As presented, taking the Constitutional text literally, could this mean that in addition to state judiciary and executive officers being unable to supersede state election laws governing Federal elections, a governor is unable to veto state laws governing Federal elections?

ANDREW LAZARUS's avatar

Trump lawyers lost every single case brought on your theories, with one exception over Pennsylvania postmarks that affected a few dozen ballots.

By the way, the Governor of Texas also used emergency powers related to COVID to change some procedures but since Trump won there easily, you don’t care.

KurtOverley's avatar

Wake up. We are in a soft civil war and the Constitution affords zero protection from those who will stop at nothing to seize and wield power.

Richard Luthmann's avatar

This is where the line gets crossedβ€”from disagreement into gatekeeping. If reading the Constitution plainly becomes grounds for exclusion, then the issue isn’t the readerβ€”it’s the system rejecting the text. You don’t have to agree with every interpretation to recognize that debate is part of the process. What’s happening here is different: it’s an attempt to declare certain arguments off-limits entirely. That’s not strengthβ€”it’s insecurity. Because confident systems engage, they don’t silence. And once you start deciding who’s β€œallowed” to hold certain views, you’re not defending institutionsβ€”you’re narrowing them. That’s a path that doesn’t end well.

Dawn Pegis's avatar

Censorship of "forbidden" arguments.

Suzie's avatar

Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent speech laid out in a most clear and stark manner how leftist Progressivism is wholly incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. That is the battle we are waging in this country today: whether we want to continue to adhere to the Constitutional Republic as framed by our founders, and maintain our inalienable rights and freedoms contained therein, or not.

The Left -worldwide - detests our Constitution, Declaration and most especially our Bill of Rights with the heat of thousand suns as these documents stand in direct opposition to their desired ends: instituting authoritarianism, if not absolute totalitarianism.

Our own Republican Congress appears to be aiding and abetting them in this pursuit, as they have shown nothing but detestable contempt for their own constituents, and most acutely over the last year and a half since Trump was re-elected President.

Justice Thomas warned we are perilously close to losing this country in the form in which it was intended.

I truly fear for the trajectory we appear to be on in what could well be our last, best days.

John Wygertz's avatar

Not with a bang, but a whimper...

Dawn Pegis's avatar

I'm NOT a bot and I concur with the sort of divide 'Suzie' outlined. 'Leftist' perspective, agenda, and methods is a real movement - worldwide! Well, at least the West. Non-free parts of the world, of course don't ALLOW such. Whatever Left's idea of 'America' should be, it does not correlate with Constitutional principles, though they are more than happy to be loud in the free space. What might have been merely liberal decades ago, has morphed into Progressivism; now the new 'democratic' socialists (see NYC, etc...) are seeking to dominate. There is a directional history in this ideological application playing-out. Control; more and more, then absolute.