WHEN DECIDING ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THE SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON THE SIDE OF JUSTICE.
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
The single, most-important precept in our country is the sanctity of the rule of law. Without it, we are nothing. Under it, we are the greatest government and society ever conceived by man. Inherent to our firm belief in the rule of law is the supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws of the United States. If we allow the respect and regard for the Constitution to be dissolved, then, like the house built on sand, the whole nation will be swept away with the first storm it encounters.
No less than these are the principles the Supreme Court is asked to protect at this most precarious time in our history. And the Supreme Court must act, because thus far, no one else has.
The Texas lawsuit marks a pivotal point in the contest for the White House in the 2020 election, not because twenty-two other states have joined it in one form or another, but rather because it goes to the heart of the controversy that has befallen and has shaken our Republic to its core. Forget the fraud and the improprieties on the ground or in cyberspace, the real question is whether any state should have the power to shape the results of a national campaign by bypassing the statutory and constitutional restraints placed upon it? The question is a federal one, not only because of the global scope of the race, but also because the Constitution guarantees equal protections under law to all citizens.
In State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., the plaintiff calls attention to the myriad of irregularities brought to light by the evolving investigations regarding the conduct of the elections by the four defendant states. The improprieties have all been previously discussed at thefederalistpages.com and by honest reporters. They culminate in these states having overcome a one in a quadrillion chance of Trump losing all four states through questionable tactics. Such gross and brazen disregard for the rule of law is intolerable in a free and just society.
And thus we arrive at the central and vexing dilemma thrust upon the Highest Court in the Land. Do we tolerate these breaches or do we cast a blind eye to the controversy?
Like a goalkeeper in a hockey match standing as the last impediment to that determined puck flying into the net, the Court must bravely place itself in the trajectory of the danger and stop it cold.
It has been repeatedly claimed that in protecting the Constitution, the court will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. This argument is spurious. The Supreme Court will have disenfranchised no one. On the contrary, it is in not acting that the court disenfranchises. If a party cannot prevail without illegality, then the contest was never its to win. But if the thief is allowed to rob, then it is the innocent and the obedient that are wronged.
That there is no remedy for the Court's intervention is equally untrue. There is. The Court may decide to nullify the certifications from the four defendant states, or it may decide that the four elections were so fraudulent that their votes may not be allowed to count at all. In either case, the states' voices will not go unheard because the question of whom these states will back for president will then go to either their legislators or, absent a majority, to their respective congressional caucuses. Either way, it will not be the Supreme Court determining who will be elected President, but the people's representatives, as it should be under these circumstances.
But those state legislatures and congressional caucuses are all Republican, you say. Yet, in making this observation, you have pointed out another factor leading to the conclusion that these four flawed elections could not have adequately reflected the voices of their constituents.
At 3 p.m. Wednesday, the defendants and the various amici submitted their responses to the allegations made by Texas. Now, the decision fall squarely in the hands of the justices. Not just their duty, but their very existence requires that they weigh the arguments carefully and make the call that upholds the Constitution and the very essence of our existence. Our nation's very future depends on it.
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon living in Florida. He is a lawyer, author, and former member of the Florida House of Representatives. He is available for speaking engagements at firstname.lastname@example.org