The US Constitution
The United States is defined by the constitution and amendments, which includes the bill of rights.
The document was originally created by descendents of land owners and slave owners, who lived in their time under their norms. Times have changed, and both the document and the meaning have changed with it.
When I say I support the Constitution, I mean this adapted document. The right to a fair trial, the balance of power in three branches of the government, the election of Senators by direct popular vote, and this document as the supreme law of the land. What do I mean by adapted? One example is that all American citizens have the right to vote, regardless of gender, previous nationality or the color of skin.
Is this document, or this republic, perfect? Absolutely not. People in positions of power have tried to subvert this document, and the rights of we the people, in many ways. Maybe I’m just simple folk, but I find this an injustice, and fight against it. In fact, the right to discuss that is covered in the first amendment, the freedom of speech.
This document makes no specific statement about elections, and few about electors. What it does say is that the electors are chosen by the states, and each of those 50+ bodies (including the District of Columbia, but not including the US territories such as Puerto Rico) have their own constitutions. I have not reviewed all of those documents, but suspect most contain something similar to Title 29A from Washington, which covers the National popular vote.
This succinctly brings the point back to we the people, and a Presidential Elector is responsible for casting votes based on the winner of the popular vote within the state of Washington. I do not always agree with the choice made by the citizens of our state, but that choice is made by us, we the people, and I stand behind it.
I’ve recently read a book about the Supreme Court, and my full thoughts on that will have to wait for another missive. To date, they have primarily been responsible for deciding whether laws and cases were in violation of the constitution. In the past 50 years, there have been cases of the court “legislating”, that is, making decisions with the intent to create a precedent, if not a law. While the case law cannot be thrown out, new laws can be written. One excellent example of that is Lilly Ledbetter, who was paid unfairly. The Supreme court, siding with business, attempted to deny this, and the legislature responded with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Thom (Seattle, WA)’s review of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America
3/5: Details the Supreme Court’s drift from left to right over the last 50 years. Demonstrates with court cases and history, but frequently ends up overstating and speculating - could have done a much better job with the material. The first chapter sums up the liberal Warren court, touching on cases emphasizing gender and racial equality. This chapter also shows the pipeline of cases about the poor, hoping to highlight their plight and minority mistreatment - but it was not to be. The book then veers into the dirty tricks that Nixon and his cabinet used to counteract the court - known during th…
Where is all this going? It is my opinion that the current attempt by a legal team of the sitting president to overturn both the will of the people AND the procedures of several states is complete injustice.
No evidence of fraud has been presented, and the Attorneys General of all 50 states have both certified this and stated that this is the fairest election on record. Should any fraud be found, it should of course be prosecuted. It is extremely unlikely, bordering on complete folly, that this evidence could amount to more than 7 million votes.
I look forward to this being resolved in a reasonable manner - I did not have “civil war” on my 2020 calendar. I side with the Constitutions of the states and our country, and I am not alone.