Communique "Crossing The State Line"
There has been a great deal of talk regarding the Right to Vote in America. And rightly so as We, the People, the Declaration of Independence, the document that recognizes our individual, natural rights as the basis of all power and which the US Constitution so dutifully tries to protect those rights from undue interference and infringement by the Government.
Yet today, our individual rights to express ourselves at the ballot box, the life-blood of a one-person, one vote democracy is under direct fire from the Republic, or government by representation aspect, aka our duly elected officials, in some instances totally shirking their obligations not to big money donors often in the form of Corporations, but to We, the People, the very persons who elected them into their various positions of power and responsibility in the first place.
What we are seeing is the failure of our elected officials to honor their commitment to the “Social Compact” or the social and political deal government has with We, the People, binding their actions to those taken in the best interest of the majority, subject to certain exceptions due to discrimination of certain individuals and classes, none of which a substantial number of these rogue legislators have chosen to belittle, ignore and pervert if the situation presents itself.
Yet it brings up a subject I have not heard much discussion about. Let’s say the now virtually nothing but a tyranny, not a good one mind you, but a poor stab at despotic fascism nonetheless, decides to “take over” the election process including deciding who to certify or not certify, the winning candidate despite the popular vote in say, Arizona.
Do we as American citizens have a right to challenge and reject the results of such a tainted election in the interest of if nothing else preserving democracy? The answer would appear to be yes.
After the US Civil War it became necessary to diminish the power of the state in favor of individual freedoms and liberty protected by the Federal government on a national basis. In other words, there are some rights that are fundamental in nature and deserve additional protection in addition to any State obligations that are common to all citizens of America, regardless of whatever state they reside in.
The Constitutional origin of these national rights are found in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV (P&I Art. IV) and include the right to travel and cross state lines without the need for a passport or any other impediment to relocating to any of the fifty states or US territories.
The P&I Art. IV also have an impact on individual federal and state voting rights, as well as the right to seek work in another state without fear of discrimination favoring pre-existing residents over persons from other states seeking employment.
In terms of let’s call them anti-democratic rogue states that wish to deny the people of at least their state the rights to choose the duly elected officials of their choice without fear of having their vote “replaced” by the will of the electors/legislature would most likely be subject to court challenges questioning the validity of a state mandated outcome that would be against the will of the people as represented by the winner of the popular vote.
Further Protection for what is truly an issue of election integrity lies in The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment (P&I 14th A) under which each State must guarantee the rights of all persons within its territory fair and equal access to both federal or state elections without undue restrictions placed upon any individual.
For clarity, the P&I Art. IV Clause protects the individual right to cross states lines, and once within the state, the P&I 14th A protect those rights afforded to all individuals within the state itself.
Further protection for individual rights including the right to vote are found in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (DP 14th A) and in the case of suspect groups or categories of persons similarly situated, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. (EPC 14th A.)
So, if indeed at some point in our near future perhaps a state decides to overturn the results of a free and fair election say, for nothing more than speculation without any real proof of fraud in favor of the candidate of their choice, will the law suits fly? You bet they will and there is more.
For you see, there is no such thing as the “I’m A Fourteen-Year-Old Child And I Can Do What I Want Clause” for any adult legislator to fall back upon simply because they don’t like the outcome, or for that matter, because the actual outcome, the will of the people doesn’t jibe with the latest Q fantasy about lizard people taking over the world by electing democrats who will “subdue” us by turning us all into Marxists, and no, you can’t make this stuff up.
There is another election oriented inquiry I have yet to hear any real, honest chatter about that would result in more protection for the integrity of our one person, one vote democratic system. Short version, could a state sue another state over what would seem to be an outward usurpation of the voting rights of its citizens? Or, are we in another state entitled to the actual majority winner of any given election?
Let’s go out on a limb here and postulate that our rogue state, for color let’s choose Arizona, decides it doesn’t like the fact their citizenry voted for the democratic candidate for US President and decides to overturn the election and give the win to the loser most likely brain-dead from the word go conspiracy theorist whose most recent accomplishments amount to little more than the waste of taxpayers time and money spent in useless pursuit of fraud that does not exist, no matter how many times the loonies say it does.
So, let’s say does California, or any other state have to accept Arizona’s “result” as a true and accurate administration of the voting process? The answer would appear to be once again no.
In America we have a government built upon not one, dual sovereigns, each of whom wield a power, one at the national level the other at the state level. In matters of voting practices, the State can find grounds for dissent in P&I Article IV under what is often referred to as the Comity Clause.
The Comity Clause, or as I prefer to call it, the “Make Nice With Each Other Clause” is where we find the basic rules for state to state interactions. You may have heard of the Full Faith And Credit Clause under which the states must mutually recognize and honor each other's at least legitimate legislative, executive, and judicial acts. This is where we find the basis for extradition between states.
Yet comity is not a theory without its limits. Keeping in mind that under the 10th Amendment, the primary obligation of maintaining the health, safety and welfare of its constituents falls to the state.
I mention this not only considering the voting rights, but also in response to the recent Covid-19 pandemic and the inability for whatever reason, mostly because they are running for president to enact and enforce even the most basic and common sense, and yes, scientific of preventative measure, must I, you , me, we in California accept this when faced with the possibility of further harm to our health, safety and welfare?
Again, the answer for both issues of safety and voting integrity would be no for although it is true that nowhere in the Constitution are We, the People guaranteed the right to practice any one system of politics and government, (please note capitalism is not a political creature, it is a form of economics) there is certainly more than enough academic and historical grist for the mill indicating that In America, we demand a certain level of “comity” that would not include the overthrow of the Federal government, thereby undermining if not obliterating our right to live in a democratic one person, one vote, system as expressed through our representative Republic without a fight or two, or three.
Short version, “You wanted to audit us? Well then, we’ll audit you! And guess what? We won’t have to look for non-existent bamboo, watermarks, routers or info packets for justification. All we will need is to point the finger at the out-of-touch crazy Q un-American, racist, seditious morons in the state legislatures, swing states and crazy zones obviously included.
Now I am not saying the best solution to our current voting dilemma doesn’t lie in comprehensive federal voting legislation that would regulate the rules of voting in a manner consistent across all the 50 states. But short of that? Are we as the news outlets and pundits so quickly claim, alone and powerless to stop what I would call the Real Steal?
Well, I do remember a time when a bunch of rebel states decided they had the right to cede from the Union and even went as far as to start a civil war so they could continue the depraved practice of slavery as a matter of both individual, God approved no less, and state rights.
That didn’t exactly go as planned, did it? Yeah, and neither will all this. My how the time flies! I didn’t even get to discuss how the First Amendment is implicated in voting rights. Voting is a form of communication and therefore speech, isn’t it? Why, I do declare, it is.
The fight for democracy is only beginning. We are winning. Why? Because we must. Who’s in?
Like My Blog? Buy Me a Coffee? druckerreport.com/donate