Attorney General Yost Argues Just Half of a Constitution
Ohio Attorney General Yost filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court supporting neither party. However, that is a lie since he is making an argument on behalf of the defendants.
Yost writes, “The courts have no more business ordering the People’s representatives how to choose electors than they do ordering the People themselves how to choose their dinners”
Dave Yost, let me take you to dinner where individual rights are on the menu…
Yost writes, “when state election codes dictate the manner for appointing presidential electors, state courts must respect the legislature’s work: they may not change the rules by which electors are chosen through judge-made doctrines or by rewriting statutes in the guise of interpretation.“
He is absolutely correct except when elected officials and election officials ignore state election codes and elect a president in a manner that lacks moral clarity. When a state’s governor, attorney general, and election’s board work in tandem to deny the equal rights of its own citizens then higher powers MUST intervene.
Yost writes, “…federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election.”
His is absolutely WRONG here. Republican Attorney General Yost is actually implying that if an election was conducted in a fraudulent manner, thus depriving the constitutional rights of the people, that state and federal courts have no right to intervene and provide relief, simply because an election was marked as complete by the very people conducting the fraud. This is an insane man’s argument here.
If courts can’t provide remedies for the unlawful acts by elected officials, then the ONLY recourse will be for the people to provide their own remedies, which history has proven never ends well.
Ladies and Gentlemen…this is exactly why courts exist. They provide justice when acts of injustice have been committed against a lawful people.
Yost states, “The federal government has only those powers that the Constitution gives to it. And nothing in the Constitution empowers courts to issue orders affirmatively directing the States how to exercise their constitutional authority.”
He’s wrong again. Why? Because if a state violates the rights guaranteed to you by both your U.S. Constitution and State Constitution, then someone has to provide relief, and the ONLY court to adjudicate that case is the United State Supreme Court.
States have constitutional power to regulate your freedoms, speech, revenue and all other manners of life. However, if the state violates your rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution then the U.S. Supreme Court has EVERY right to intervene on your behalf, the individual.
The Texas lawsuit contends that the four states listed violated their own constitution and election laws as laid out by their state legislatures. Attorney General Yost is saying that the Supreme Court has no right to hold anyone accountable and thus the people should be left to their own devices to render justice. This level of thinking is blind to the will and intent of the separation of powers doctrine he purports to argue.
The Supreme Court should ONLY intervene in state law cases where no other relief can be found in state courts. We have most certainly arrived at that place in the current contest.
However, he cites a court case that makes my point when he states, “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism” ensures that one government is able to check overreach by the other, and thus “protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 222 (2011).
He is saying that the ONE government that should have ABSOLUTE power over the people in presidential elections is the state. When Detroit Michigan kicked out their own citizens from engaging in a lawful practice to observe and challenge the ballot counting process, then the liberty of the individual was imprisoned by “arbitrary power.” Those individuals sought relief from allowing a Gestapo level secret election from diluting the weight of their individual vote. The governor, attorney general and election’s board provided no relief. Then when the individual sought relief in the state courts, they found no justice.
Mr. Yost, where then do these lawful voters go to for remedy? They go to the U.S. Supreme Court for the explicit purpose of “ensur[ing] that one government [Supreme Court] is able to check overreach [Michigan].” Why, “to protect the liberties of the individual from arbitrary power.”
But if Yost’s hypocrisy hasn’t been in full view yet, then this next statement will shine the light for sure.
Yost states, “Although Ohio does not endorse Texas’s proposed relief, it does endorse its call for a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause. More precisely, Ohio urges the Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run.”
Wait, What? Yost is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if courts and executive actors are allowed to “change the rules by which presidential elections are run.” However, should they determine the answer is no, then he has asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in those states where the illegal activity occurred. In other words, America, he is only asking for courts to make a decision that will effect future elections. His hypocrisy is witnessed in the fact that he seeks no relief for the individuals who were harmed by the actions of these bad actors.
He continues, “In many States, citizens voted for President under rules created by state judiciaries and state executive actors rather than state legislatures.” Yes, which means the state crafted a fraudulent election against the will of the people.
However, Mr. Yost, even within states, counties engaged in practices that broke election laws created by their respective state legislatures. These “state executive actors” are forcing their personal desired outcome of an election against the true will and intent of the people. Then state courts ignored those abuses for political reasons and protected the actions of the arbitrary powers of the state.
He ends with, “It is not unreasonable to wonder—and many millions of Americans do—whether those hastily implemented changes exposed the election systems to vulnerabilities. Nor is it unreasonable to object on fairness grounds—as many millions of Americans do—to changing the voting rules when the election is impending and the changes’ impact on the results can be predicted.”
The fallacies of his argument are:
- In attempting to make his argument he is completely ignoring the rights of the citizens of MI, WI, GA, and PA – rights that were abused by state actors.
- That if a state certifies an election then the Supreme Court has no right to adjudicate criminal activities by state actors, thus protecting the arbitrary powers of the state.
- He contends that the constitutional rights of the individual are on a lower rung than the constitutional rights of the state.
- He unknowingly argues that a state has the right to create an environment for continual election theft to occur, and the federal government has no right to intervene once a state has certified the theft of that election.
- He rightfully makes the argument that state election codes determine how state electors are sent to vote for the president. However, he completely ignores how those same election codes that govern the very process of the election were criminally broken by state actors. Why would a Republican attorney general argue for state rights but not argue for individual rights?
- He speaks to the doubt that exists within the hearts of the American people resulting from the lawless activities by state actors, but then ignores the fact that such lawlessness resulted in a fraudulent outcome.
Lastly, let me speak to the citizens of Ohio. When the defendants engaged in their criminal behavior to solicit an election result in a manner that is not prescribed by law, they abused your rights to a true form of representative government. They diluted the weight of your vote and abused your rights of equality. Did your attorney general go to the Supreme Court to fight for your rights? NO. Did your AG submit a brief to ensure your vote was treated with the same measure of weight as those voters in defendant states? No, he did not. He made an argument to help the defendants dismiss the case before the Supreme Court. Why? Because, at the end of the day, Dave Yost believes that state rights hold a higher value than individual rights. We know this by what he argued, and more importantly, by what he didn’t argue.
Finally, let us peek into the window of a very important Supreme Court case that involved George Bush and Al Gore – a case that Yost would have done well to read prior to filing his brief.
Why did they choose to accept this case?
“The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated.” and “[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.””
Why did they rule against Florida’s Supreme Court and toss 170,000 votes?
For the [Florida Supreme] court to step away from this [election laws] established practice, prescribed by the Secretary of State, the state official charged by the legislature with “responsibility to … [o]btain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election laws, was to depart from the legislative scheme.
In other words, Mr. Yost, because state actors and state courts chose to ignore the will of the people, as represented in the state’s legislature, the court tossed 170,000 votes and altered the outcome of Florida’s election.
The reason Yost did not mention this monumental court case is because it bears no fruit for his efforts.
Support My Efforts To Keep America Free
The Immigrant: Is He an Acquisition or a Detriment?
By Bernard Gillam | Judge Magazine, 1903