Will the Supreme Court Complete the Destruction of the USA?
Site rules stolen from our good friend PAVACA
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles, video and such.
I had another article ready to go and then I saw this video.
And so, this is the seeding ground of the literal destruction of American sovereignty.
Robert Gouveia Esq.
Rough Transcript – BEGIN
The DOJ filed an instant appeal saying, “We’re going to overturn this lower level judge who just found that the laws that make it criminal to vote in an election if you’re a non-citizen are unconstitutional.”
Now, this case is a very strange one. It comes out of Chelsea Michelle Anne Cox’s prosecution for voting illegally in the election…
And the judge who’s behind this is also a curious person saying he just decided that this criminal charge is not valid because the prosecution is unconstitutional… The holding essentially is saying, “No, the feds can’t prosecute these crimes. Only states can prosecute these things.” which means that certain states that don’t hardly prosecute any of these crimes will just continue to not do that. And so if you have a state like California or Michigan or you have Arizona where these blue secretaries exist and blue attorneys general exist and you have non-citizens voting, no one’s going to do anything about it.
…the judge who did this is a Biden judge. But there’s a very curious recommendation here. So his name is David S. Leibowitz appointed by Joe Biden March 1, 2024. And he is a lawyer from Florida, now the district judge. He was a law clerk some time ago. Was actually a US attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most corrupt locations in the planet. and he got recommended by Marco Rubio in 2021. Of course, Joe Biden is the president at that time and you know that’s being generous to him and Rubio recommended him. Remember that we have this thing called the blue slip or the red slip. So nominees need to kind of pass through these senators. They can sign off on them or not. We’ve got a big problem with that because Chuck Grassley won’t actually overrule any of the blue slips. So, a lot of our US attorneys have been prevented from actually being able to take office, but Rubio recommended this guy and he was nominated part of a bipartisan package… And it’s about that money, man. So Leibowitz, this guy, this judge is the nephew of a guy called Norman Brahman. He’s a billionaire with a car dealership and he’s a Rubio benefactor. Okay? So he donated 5 to10 million,5 and 10 million to Rubio back in 2016. So that’s why Rubio comes out and wants to nominate him. …
[Gouveia goes into more history of the judge’s family & Rubio. — GC]
So it’s a very curious thing. You know, this is a recommendation for somebody who’s been very supportive of the Rubio’s. And what’s curious about this is the judge, I don’t think was really capable of articulating the rationale for this holding. And so what he did, –this is why this is a little bit concerning, — is he actually went and appointed an amicus. So a friend of the court to come in and do some analysis.
Now the guy who came in and did the analysis who was ultimately going to be really the source of the judge’s decision is called Paul Clement.And so let me show you where this was. And Paul Clement right now memorandum of a court appointed amicus curier. So friend of the court Paul Clement is a very highly respected reputable lawyer across the United States. Background on him is he’s somebody who worked for George W. Bush and was very well-versed with the Supreme Court, the solicitor general from 2005 to 2008 and is now what some people call like the Secret Service whisperer. So when he writes an article, everybody’s like, “Oh, what did Paul Clement say?”
Now, he ultimately has handled gobs of cases in front of the Supreme Court. Joined the DOJ February 2001, handled a ton of these cases, became future acting AG, and then gave notice of his resignation back in 2008, goes and teaches at Georgetown, all sorts of stuff. Then they created this law firm in Washington DC and led the challenge to overturn affordable healthcare and more.
The reason I’m sharing this with you is because he is also saying that this federal law is unconstitutional. The judge basically just copied and pasted his entire theory into his order. So, lots of stuff. Trump was also considering him to be on the Supreme Court. Of course, the DOJ is appealing this outcome, but these are all the cases that he’s appeared on in front of the Supreme Court. Tons. I mean, just gobs.
[Gouveia shows a long list of cases where Clement appeared before the Supreme Court. This is why Clement is so dangerous. He is well known and respected by the Supreme Court. — GC]
So like the level of experience and reputation he has is a very extensive litany as we can see. So the judge appointed him and said what do you think Paul and then Paul came out and he wrote this memo.
It’s a 53 page memo and in it he fleshes out both sides of the argument but largely he’s saying that the law is unconstitutional. And the main theory here before we take a look at the judge’s order is that in order to find it valid, you’d have to combine various aspects of the constitution to do it. He says the law says, this is from Paul Clement, that it shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election for president. But the constitution requires the federal government to employ in federal elections the state’s qualifications. And so the states get to decide what the qualifications are. And so this would contravene the rule that the states, not the federal government, determine voter qualifications. He goes through the history and he says back in 1874, the Supreme Court said that citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition in order to vote and that some states allowed aliens to vote back in 1874. And then by the time Congress passed this new section 611 in 1996, that was all a distant memory.
And the main counterargument is that the contrary arguments have considerable force. Right? So in other words, they say if you look at the text, if you look at the history from Paul Clement, he writes this new law passed by Congress is a voter qualification and as we know the constitution overrides a statute. So it goes beyond Congress’s authorities.
Now the counterargument he says, well you can also conclude that Congress can regulate voter qualifications. More narrowly, an argument could be made that Congress is sweeping power over immigration paired with the necessary and proper clause, allow it to prohibit voting by aliens, even if it must otherwise take the state voter qualifications as a given. And perhaps most prominently, 611, the new law that criminalizes this, could be construed as simply a federal enforcement mechanism that is constitutional when applied in states that prohibit noncitizen voting. Right?
So the idea is if the states say that a non-citizen is prohibited from voting, the feds can enforce that and this is basically enabling a prosecution based on a state’s prior authority. They set the qualifications when that is violated. Then the feds can prosecute and basically extend their jurisdiction over it. But the problem of course is then the states if this is upheld the states really could just allow non-citizens to vote and based on his precedent right he’s saying that historically there’s an argument to be made that they can do that he writes section 611 could on that reading operate not as a verboten federal voting qualification but as a permissible effort by the federal government to criminalize unlawful voting by individuals who are aliens.
Now, that said, 611’s unless clause, which carves out only a narrow exception for alien voting in non-federal elections when permitted by state law, complicates that reading. And so, on balance, he says, it seems that the better view is that because 611 was intended to criminalize alien voting regardless of state law, it’s a voter qualification and therefore it’s unconstitutional. So if that’s right, then Congress can’t do it and they overstep their constitutional bounds and that now anyone voting in federal elections, all of these prosecutions that we’ve been talking about here,
you know, hundreds of them now are all illegal.
So that means there’s no repercussions, especially if the states decide not to prosecute. Absolutely wild.
Now here in addition to that is more from the judge. Now the court sincerely thanks this guy for undertaking their appointments. Basically he says you guys go figure this out. You know this is complicated so I’ll just whatever you say. And council performed their duty. They did it pro bono. So he did all that work for free and they’ve acted with the finest tradition of the federal bar. It’s like, wow, you do all that for free in order to invalidate criminal prosecutions of non-citizens. Amicus was not appointed to assist either party. Both were well represented by experienced counsel and they were appointed only to provide me, the judge, with a thorough and candid view of all the relevant legal authorities.
So, the judge just takes it and runs with it. And he says ultimately, this is an unusual criminal case. There’s an old law here from uh the the Congress saying it’s illegal to vote as a non-citizen. Of course, a bunch of people are being prosecuted.
The DOJ, this is going to be a major battle. And he says it’s probably not constitutional. They cite to a main case. That case is very, very weak is what he says. And because the original meaning of the constitution says, states set the qualifications. So like literally the states if they set the qualifications and the federal government can’t interject as to whether citizens or not can vote. The takeaway is that they can just change their rules. California already wants to do this. They’re already enabling non-citizens to vote in city elections in LA. So if this is the president that holds, they can change it across the entire state. Non-citizens can vote. And what are the federal prosecutors going to do about it? Nothing. because the enforcement of that is illegal.
So if the constitution says that the only way to fix that is will be with an amendment and we know that’s never going to happen.
So the best reading of this underpins that this criminal case means this law is a voter qualification matter and the constitution does not authorize Congress to set those except for very specific provisions. Congress has no power who can vote and who cannot vote in federal elections. It’s crazy. which is of course why they wanted this invasion to come in so that they could vote and then once they can vote the non-citizens will have the ability to then elect certain you know people who are very sympathetic to their causes will have mass amnesty then they’ll become citizens and everything is just cooked. They say this is so fundamental.
When you’re prosecuted based on an illegal law, that prosecution cannot stand. And so after careful consideration, this law is unconstitutional as applied. Chelsea Cox, this illegal voter cannot be prosecuted for a violation of an unconstitutional law.
This is from the judge and it’s backed by Paul Clement, which makes me extremely nervous about this because that will have sway with some of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And if Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts are already people who are perfectly happy with birthright citizenship applying to all people essentially, even if you break the law to come in here, they may latch on to this argument.
So long story short, the whole law he says is unconstitutional. And so the motion to dismiss the indictment or the information she was not indicted is all valid pure issue of law saying that there are a bunch of Supreme Court cases, some of which the government is relying on and it’s a little separate.
The government’s main argument comes from a 1970 case and they say, “Yeah, Congress may set voter qualifications in federal but not state elections.” And so at the state level, yeah, they can maybe set non-citizens to vote for their state government, but at the federal level, Congress can ultimately set rules across the the board, but there it was different. This is not about a criminal prosecution. So that case is really not on point. And then we got to turn to other cases. So he does that and applying that guidance, it’s not as clear as he may otherwise say the other side argues. So, we can’t ignore these other prior cases.
The parties spill a lot of ink about how they should apply this other case from 2013. And in urging the court to disregard Scalia’s analysis, the government is dismissive of the dicta. They say it’s dicta on dicta, which is, you know, commentary basically added into the opinion that doesn’t relate to the final holding. But I’m not saying any of that holds.
He’s really just flying through the president and then saying it’s really a constitutional matter. The Constitution commits to the states and the states alone the power to set voter qualifications in federal elections, not just state. He says you can just go back and read the debates and it was all to them. Three clauses will address all of this. Article one says that voters in elections shall have the qualifications requisite for electors. 17th amendment came out in 1913 uses the same rule. The electors in each state you’ll have the qualifications and article 2 addresses presidential elections for the electoral college. And so read together those are the voter qualification rules and the constitution. This is a statute so it can’t override the constitution.
In federal congressional elections voters qualifications are a function of each state rules. The reading of these clauses is reinforced by our constitutional order setting a bunch of other cases. And the design is no accident. We don’t want the feds to set qualifications like maybe all you know like only like you know white Christians can vote or something. So the states get to decide that and now apparently that is extended across the board to non-citizens. So this is a voter qualification law. It sets a standard. Can’t do that. The Constitution says that belongs to the states and nothing in the actual Constitution allows Congress to do that. So, if this spreads or this is upheld by the Supreme Court, it’s going to be a voting free-for-all. Your citizenship may not matter for anything at all. First problem with the argument is the language of 611. It’s a voter qualification. And again, it doesn’t matter if it’s between state or federal elections. That’s the argument. Congress said it’s for federal elections, but they say it’s it applies to all elections, not just states. So there is no real distinction between the state setting qualifications for state office versus federal office.
But they say no, we have the elections clause. This is the big one. Saying we can protect the integrity of federal elections. elections clause as we know says times, place and manner of holding elections for senators and reps in Congress shall be prescribed by the state legislature thereof, right? But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter those regulations except from choosing senators.
Now, that’s what we all would latch on to and say, well, Congress did that. The time, places, and manner, so manner, who can vote means you can say non-citizens are prohibited. So while these clauses expressly commit the states on authority to who can vote, the elections clause gives it about how they can vote. It’s manner. It’s not who. Okay? So it’s manner but it doesn’t mean the actual qualification. So the argument is outside of the elections clause, right? So the federal government can’t set uniform standards across the nation and otherwise the states get to decide. So, all said and done, this is now unconstitutional. Can Florida prohibit and punish this? Yeah, Florida can and Florida has, but many other states never will and wouldn’t want to.
Anyways, this is the problem. Okay, the federal government is now coming in to say, “These are illegal aliens voting, so we’re going to prosecute that.” But can the federal government actually remove the defendant from the states? Well, they’re going to have to go through immigration proceedings now. And Congress can’t could draft an enforcement statute with criminal penalties. If the state decided to prohibit non-citizens from voting, then they could pass like a criminal law. You violated a state qualification and now we’re prosecuting you for that. But that’s not what we have. And so, this is a rare case. And ultimately, he says based on what Paul Clement and the other amicus sent over to him, this law is unconstitutional. Her case is dismissed. All other pending motions are denied as moot and all other penalties are vacated signed by Rubio’s recommended judge, David S. Lieowitz, out of Florida.
And this and he’s got the support of Paul Clement, who’s not a random person. And so this will ultimately go up, I would imagine, to the Supreme Court probably quickly. And we’ll see how Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts weigh in on this. But the DOJ instantly as soon as that order came down filed a notice of appeal because every single other defendant who’s been charged with this will now use it in their defense.
And yeah, Florida as the state may be prosecuting these people, but other states are not. We have non-citizens who are being charged in blue states all over the place and they’re facing criminal charges. they’re going to take this decision and file the exact same motion and say my case should be dismissed as well.
So, it’s a shocking development in that according to this judge and Paul Clement and others who have a lot of Paul Clement has a lot of gravitas in, you know, right-wing circles saying it’s illegal, can’t prosecute these people. Only states can and states won’t. So, all of the non-citizens voting will basically illegal for them to do that. if you extrapolate this out. So, this will have to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. No doubt about it. They’re going to
take it up to the 11th Circuit. We’ll see what the 11th Circuit does, but this will spread like wildfire.
Every single person who’s a non-citizen who got charged under the statute. And there’s now well over a hundred. And that will turn into a battle for our elections and our sovereignty where we get invaded by millions and millions of non-citizens. they vote and there’s nothing we can do about it at the federal level. If the states don’t want to enforce it then or even look into it or even pass laws that say, “Oh, if the qualification authority is with us, then we’ll just make it legal.” What are you going to do about it? Amend the Constitution? Obviously, you’re not going to do that.
And so, this is the seeding ground of the literal destruction of American sovereignty.
When millions of non-citizens can come in here and vote and there’s nothing the federal government can do about it, we start to ask ourselves, what is citizenship? What does it even mean? Is it even worth a damn? Not really. And what kind of sane nation would actually sit around and allow this to happen?
So big problem out of Florida. And I thought, you know, this will be something that the Supreme Court will deal with. Then I saw the amicus from Paul Clement and I thought, “Oh, that’s great.” Because on these issues, the Supreme Court will read into that and they may find his arguments persuasive. So, we’ll keep our eye on this one and see what comes next. But this is an extensive extensive concern. Hopefully the 11th Circuit reasons through this appropriately and America can protect our sovereignty.
[END TRANSCRIPT]
TheseTruths commented yesterday
Reply to Gail Combs
This is what I came across during a discussion yesterday. If the Constitution says the states have the authority to decide whether illegals can vote, and if SCOTUS upholds that, we are in royal trouble. It would also mean that every prosecution for illegals having voted would be null and void.
I think this is the law that they are arguing is unconstitutional. [It is -GC]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611
18 U.S. Code § 611 – Voting by aliens
(a)It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—
(1)the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2)aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3)voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b)Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c)Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if—
(1)each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
(2)the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
(3)the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.
I have no confidence in SCOTUS ruling in a way to protect the country.
….
Second comment:
Yes, word needs to get out, but I don’t know what can be done. SCOTUS is supposed to rule based on lawyers’ arguments. If there is no Constitutional basis for the federal government’s stopping illegals from voting, I don’t know what the lawyers can do. IMO an argument could be made about original intent, but if specific wording can’t be found in the Constitution…
We know how three justices will vote, and I have no confidence in some of the others.
It makes no sense to allow foreign invaders to vote who have entered the country illegally. That would transform the country into something other than was intended.
Amendment XIV, Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
My ability to vote is not literally taken away by anyone else’s voting, but my ability to elect the people I think most qualified is diluted if invaders can come in and flood the ballot box. We know that many are sponsored by foreign countries and donors for the express purpose of altering and taking over the United States. That abridges our ability to elect those whom we choose to protect us and our country.
The Guarantee Clause
Article IV, Section 4:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and
shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Illegals’ voting is a step beyond invasion.