Miss Constitution Analyzes. . . Day 27 of the Presidential Election Crisis
Miss Constitution wants to make it clear that she is analyzing information that she finds credible against generally known federal governance structures as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. For a more complete understanding of the Constitution she would refer you to America’s Constitution – A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar, Random House 2005. She would also refer you to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition for specific definitions and examples. Otherwise, the information given is generally known in the public sector.
Treason. . . Conspiracies. . . the Constitution of the United States. . . Possible Remedy if Found
Miss Constitution thinks if any of the more serious allegations of voter fraud are true, we are dealing with treason (“overt acts to overthrow the government to which the offender owes and allegiance”) in the form of a coup d’ etat. These allegations need to be shown to be untrue before power is transferred. If the fraud is de minimis and unrelated to a larger conspiracy the states involved can make legislative corrections. If the allegations rise to a more sinister level and involve any foreign actors in concert with persons holding public trust in the United States, the President of the United States has an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States under Article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution. If the President of the United States has knowledge of possible treason and does not pursue every avenue of exposure and cure, he himself will have violated his Oath of Office. If any serious allegations are true and power transferred just to “get on with it” then the Constitution of the United States will not have been preserved and the notion of a Constitutional Republic will cease to exist. Miss Constitution thinks we need to get to the bottom of it for all Americans both Democrat and Republican. She has the following questions:
Where is the Attorney General of the United States and why is the United States not a Plaintiff in any proceedings?
- Facts of Presidential election fraud must be established in a court of law as true. No federal District Court that would establish these facts has agreed to hear evidence, therefore we do not know what is true. Evidence is presented and challenged in a court of law until truth is established. Truth is not established in the press or by one of the candidates for office.
- A winning appeal forcing a District Court to hear evidence will take time and finding true facts will take time.
- The Supreme Court, as a mostly appellate court, will ordinarily not hear a case where facts have not been established as true and law applied to those facts. The Supreme Court of the United States generally rules on whether law was appropriately applied to a set of established facts, if it even chooses to hear a case. The Supreme Court generally does not hear cases that are moot, theoretical, belong to be determined by another co-equal branch of government, involve political questions, or are not yet ripe (confusing decisions have been made in lower appellate courts and need clarification.) A case involving a possible coup d’ etat would certainly warrant their attention.
The Constitution of the United States allows approximately 2½ months after an election that includes the Presidency to establish facts in a court of law, account for any appeals including appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, and apply a remedy. Any remedy must be of such fairness as to be accepted as valid by the losing candidate and Party. This means any special election, if that is the remedy, must be monitored by the Supreme Court of the United States. Any other remedy must be seen as scrupulously fair by all parties.
What we want to know:
- Has the Attorney General investigated the alleged fraud involving the Presidency through the FBI and other investigatory agencies and what is its conclusion?
- If it has not investigated the alleged fraud, why hasn’t it?
Miss Constitution thinks that the Supreme Court of the United States could act under the auspices of equity, (see Black’s Law Dictionary regarding the merger of law and equity in federal procedure), but it must be shown that the severity of the allegations, if true, to the existence of our Constitutional Republic are so compelling as to require special consideration. If the enormity of the allegations are such that there is not enough time to prove facts as true, a remedy must be devised by the Supreme Court of the United States that will inspire confidence in the American people that their system of governance is still valid. This confidence includes citizens who voted for both Presidential candidates.
Miss Constitution hopes that none of the serious allegations are true and that there is no conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. She hopes no American citizen would participate in such a thing and she hopes it can be shown to her satisfaction that a free and fair Presidential election was held. However, it is also Miss Constitution’s view that if any of this is true, every measure must be taken to stop it and to prosecute those responsible no matter who it includes and how long it takes.
