SCOTUS drops Texas case: Tex GOP asks if law abiding states should form new United States

[Elderberry]

JoNova 12/12/2020

https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/scotus-drops-texas-case-tex-gop-asks-if-law-abiding-states-should-form-new-united-states/

By a 7-2 decision The Supreme Court apparently decided that 18 States did not suffer if 4 States committed blatant election fraud by breaching their own and the national constitution. Only Justices Alito and Thomas voted to proceed with the case.

There is still a long way to go. Rudy Guiliani says “We are not finished, believe me”. The case was not rejected on merits. So it can be resubmitted by different parties who have “standing” to sue and who can claim injury, and it can be split into 4 or 5 different cases. Though, it is hard to justify why the rest of the USA is not injured by rampant corruption and States ignoring the Constitution. The fate of the USA hangs in the balance, yet no court has heard all the evidence of voter fraud.

The drums of civil war can be heard in the distance. The Texas GOP says “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”




States joining Texas Suit SCOTUS. Plus Alaska.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This was settled in 1865.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1]

This was settled in 1865.

Naw. Forced to bow is not bowing. 'Settled' by coercion is not peace.

[libertybele]

The Texas GOP says “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

Ok ... sounds good, but first of all once amnesty is granted states like TX and FL will be inundated with new liberal "citizens", and how do you go about bonding states together when the Supreme Court tossed out the case (regardless of how Giuliani looks at it) and secondly we will have a DEM controlled majority in all Houses making that impossible??

So we'd have part of the country abiding by the Constitution and part of the country continuing to do as they please -- what exactly does that accomplish?  The problem obviously is the entire country needs to abide by our Constitution, that's not going to happen as we know full well that the DEMS will pack the Court with liberal judges -- that they promised and will do.

We need a NEW party that can and will overthrow the socialist party that will be created when they take full control.  Start a new conservative party from the ground up period.

Joe is going to be sworn in.  This babble from Giuliani is just that.  We lost our Republic.  Our FREEDOM is at stake.  Our FREEDOM, our REPUBLIC and our CONSTITUTION are worth fighting for.

[libertybele]

Naw. Forced to bow is not bowing. 'Settled' by coercion is not peace.

Exactly.

[libertybele]

This was settled in 1865.

You continue to miss the point.  We just lost our Republic.  Thinking that Joe only has 4 years and then we get to vote again and everything is going to be ok is (with all respect) absurd.

Exactly what makes you think that our electoral process has a shred of integrity left? 

Ask yourself these 4 questions:

1)  Do you see any chance of a Republican being seated in any House once amnesty and citizenship is granted to all the illegals?

2)  Do you think that the DEMS will keep the electoral process; delegates per state as is?

3)  Do you think that the justice system under the new administration will adhere to the Constitution?

4)  Do you think that the DEMS will pack the courts with more liberal justices?

I would really like to know your feelings on the questions I just asked.

[DCPatriot]

Naw. Forced to bow is not bowing. 'Settled' by coercion is not peace.

Please give us an example of any war "settled" by anything other than coercion.

We'll wait.

[roamer_1]

Please give us an example of any war "settled" by anything other than coercion.

We'll wait.

True enough... But that is not resolution, nor has it ever been. Might does not make right.

[libertybele]

Please give us an example of any war "settled" by anything other than coercion.

We'll wait.

Proposition of an all out war or Revolution is one consideration; but one that I don't advocate. I'd rather see a NEW conservative party formed to overthrow the existing DEM party -- they just overthrew and destroyed the GOP party, the integrity of our electoral process in one swoop and our SCOTUS sat and approved.

Cases being thrown out and not heard is a clear sign that we lost our Republic period.  Our AG sat with his thumb up his rear and did nothing to bring those responsible for all the evidence that was uncovered during "Russia gate", Burisma, and the bogus Impeachment!! Our Republic was lost long before this election!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Please give us an example of any war "settled" by anything other than coercion.

We'll wait.

He hightails it for the hills to fight his battles.

Some warrior.

[roamer_1]

He hightails it for the hills to fight his battles.

Some warrior.

Oh I'll fight alright. Just not for you.

[Mesaclone]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson.

That said....what is being contemplated here is not a rerun of 1861. We are talking about a gathering of those states that would like to return to Constitutional government and thus preserve the Union that was established in 1787. The states who do not wish to join that endeavor, may feel free to abstain...though admittedly...a few states are not invited to remain with us...California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, New York and a number of New England states (although counties within those states could certainly send representation to this convention). Again, this is not secession...it is renewal of the original Constitutional contract.

Texas needs to call for a Constitutional convention and invite the states it deems still willing to return to "originalism"....In this convention, steps would be taken to restore the Constitution, not to break from it. Perhaps locating a new national "Capital" (my vote goes to Dallas but Kansas City might have an argument as well), establishing stricter rules both for citizenship (eliminating the "anchor baby" baloney for example) and voter ID verification procedures to ensure the vote of EVERY legal citizen counts and that none are disenfranchised by fraud. Re-affirming, of course, the electoral college.

This convention, after affirming the constitution with some minor corrections...example: eliminating the pre-amble clause of the 2nd amendment to clarify that the right to bear arms may NEVER be infringed/eliminating the income tax/establishing a pro-life position, etcetera...and most importantly I would add an amendment that clearly states "All men will be treated under the law according to the content of their character, not the color of their skin."

After locking in our updated Constitution, this convention would then proceed to organize national elections. New House and Senatorial elections would be held as well.

Once this updated Constitution is affirmed, a new government can be formed...as the new NATIONAL government of the United States of America. Membership by invitation only.

Yes...this is dreaming a bit. But I think the answer is not some sort of secession followed by military actions. That would be self-destructive and horrific even if won...more importantly, WE must remember that WE are the legitimate government and citizens of the United States and WE are the legitimate heirs to the Founders and the Constitution they created. It is not US who needs to secede...no....this would be more of an excision of states gone rogue...Cali, Oregon, Washington, NY, Illinois and a number of far Northeastern states.

Lastly, as Texas is leading this great movement....let's just go with the already coined term TEXIT.

[bilo]

You continue to miss the point.  We just lost our Republic.  Thinking that Joe only has 4 years and then we get to vote again and everything is going to be ok is (with all respect) absurd.

Exactly what makes you think that our electoral process has a shred of integrity left? 

Ask yourself these 4 questions:

1)  Do you see any chance of a Republican being seated in any House once amnesty and citizenship is granted to all the illegals?

2)  Do you think that the DEMS will keep the electoral process; delegates per state as is?

3)  Do you think that the justice system under the new administration will adhere to the Constitution?

4)  Do you think that the DEMS will pack the courts with more liberal justices?

I would really like to know your feelings on the questions I just asked.

We know the answers because the Rats have already told us what they will do. If the Pubs win in GA., the damage the leftists will do will still be so extensive we won't be able to come back from it. They may not be able to pack the SCOTUS, or add States, but they will be able to open the borders, grant temporary visas, expand refugee status and numbers that will be accepted. They will push for permanent mail-in voting and ballot harvesting and will get it. The country is going to be changed.

The question is how do we avoid having the yoke of collectivism placed on our necks?

[cato potatoe]

It seemed far-fetched just a few years ago.  However, other than material possessions, we have little in common with left-wingers who dominate the blue states.  Certainly not enough to share a country.  The Europeans hold our nation's founders in higher esteem than do the democrats.  The sectional divide is so dramatic, I don't see us holding together for more than a couple of decades.

[Mesaclone]

We know the answers because the Rats have already told us what they will do. If the Pubs win in GA., the damage the leftists will do will still be so extensive we won't be able to come back from it. They may not be able to pack the SCOTUS, or add States, but they will be able to open the borders, grant temporary visas, expand refugee status and numbers that will be accepted. They will push for permanent mail-in voting and ballot harvesting and will get it. The country is going to be changed.

The question is how do we avoid having the yoke of collectivism placed on our necks?

The only answer at that point is Texit.

Rush said it well "there cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, the government and of how we manage our affairs". That being the case, the most peaceful and productive path is to go our own ways and to follow the principles both aspire to...I have no desire to subjugate liberals to small government/conservative/constitutional rule....and expect that they should have no right to subject me to the kind of big government/collectivist/lawlessness they espouse. Its best that we each take our own paths...and remain in friendly economic discourse as separate entities.

[Mesaclone]

It seemed far-fetched just a few years ago.  However, other than material possessions, we have little in common with left-wingers who dominate the blue states.  Certainly not enough to share a country.  The Europeans hold our nation's founders in higher esteem than do the democrats.  The sectional divide is so dramatic, I don't see us holding together for more than a couple of decades.

My hope is that this separation can be achieved peacefully, and with a strong alliance to ensure mutual security. This will be difficult to accomplish, but certainly not impossible.

[Bigun]

This was settled in 1865.

You think so?  You might be in for a big surprise!

[cato potatoe]

My hope is that this separation can be achieved peacefully, and with a strong alliance to ensure mutual security. This will be difficult to accomplish, but certainly not impossible.

It will be tough to form an alliance because the left does not abide any expression of dissent.  If they had respect for the concept of federalism, the US would have a fighting chance of long term survival.  As it is, they only want a single authoritarian regime with no diversity of thought.

[bilo]

The only answer at that point is Texit.

Rush said it well "there cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, the government and of how we manage our affairs". That being the case, the most peaceful and productive path is to go our own ways and to follow the principles both aspire to...I have no desire to subjugate liberals to small government/conservative/constitutional rule....and expect that they should have no right to subject me to the kind of big government/collectivist/lawlessness they espouse. Its best that we each take our own paths...and remain in friendly economic discourse as separate entities.

 

Couldn't have said it better!

[bilo]

My hope is that this separation can be achieved peacefully, and with a strong alliance to ensure mutual security. This will be difficult to accomplish, but certainly not impossible.

I think this is the only way it gets done.

All it will take is one State starting the process (TEXIT for example) and then the question of how will begin in earnest.

[catfish1957]

This was settled in 1865.

At least for a little while. 

[Mesaclone]

At least for a little while. 

For myself, this is not secession. More like a reset. We go back to the core principles and aspirations of 1787 and the Constitution...and invite/admit the states (and counties) who wish to do the same. We would be, in a real sense, re-establishing that Union of likeminded peoples. We need not invite nor accept states who will oppose this reset of the Union. We are not seceding, we are excising those who reject the US Constitution. That’s an important distinction...not just splitting hairs.

Of course, should that excision fail...let Texas do its Texit thing and the rest of us will gladly join with her in a new Republic. But the better alternative would be the first path...certainly likely to be the more amicable route.

[catfish1957]

For myself, this is not secession. More like a reset. We go back to the core principles and aspirations of 1787 and the Constitution...and invite/admit the states (and counties) who wish to do the same. We would be, in a real sense, re-establishing that Union of likeminded peoples. We need not invite nor accept states who will oppose this reset of the Union. We are not seceding, we are excising those who reject the US Constitution. That’s an important distinction...not just splitting hairs.

No argument, but there is always the need of a contingency "Plan B"

[Mesaclone]

No argument, but there is always the need of a contingency "Plan B"

Agreed. What we can’t do is just swallow this blue pill and go on as if everything is acceptable.