Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest Re-Posted Nov 15, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
In the Washington pro-Trump rally Black-clad members of the group Refuse Fascism became violent as speeches got underway. Punches were exchanged. This is simply what we face going forward. These people do not even know what Fascism is. Nevertheless, they like the label and use it anyway.
They obviously never bothered to just good what is fascism for if they did, they would see that it has been adopted by the Democrats and European leaders to strip people of rights, impose lockdowns, and destroy all private business. In politics, if you move extreme right or extreme left, you end up with fascism under the pretends of different reasons.
The hatred in this country is bubbling forth. A Milwaukee news anchor is off the air for saying why “Jeopardy” host Alex Trebek died this year while Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell keeps on ticking. CNN International anchor Christiane Amanpour, who I once respected, compared President Trump’s four years in office to Kristallnacht which began the Holocaust in Germany. The sheer hatred being put out by those on various news organizations is unbelievable. By constantly saying these nasty comments, they are not simply insulting one man. They are stirring up the hatred on both sides and they are obviously very stupid people for they can see that they are leading society into civil war. Of course, others suggest I am wrong and they indeed know what they are doing and are intentionally aiding a Marxist revolution.
This will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Legally, the Supreme Court should nullify states that are simply too corrupt like Pennsylvania and Michigan. However, I really see this as a repeat of not Bush v Gore, but the Dread Scot Decision which led to the Civil War.
One of the problems that emerge is I seriously doubt the Supreme Court can be impartial in a decision. I would rule for another election and it and that people must vote only so it can be verified. The problem is that the Constitution has few hard and fast set dates, but the beginning and end of a president’s term are two of them. The 20th Amendment says that “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” Consequently, on that date, whether there was an election held in the fall or not, the terms of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence will end. This, in my view, allows the Supreme Court to rule that the 20th Amendment is unconstitutional in part. What if we were attacked or in a real pandemic. You cannot simply say that Trump and Pence and finished with no person actually running the country. Yes, some will say well the speaker of the house would take over. What if the House were bombed and there is no speaker?
The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for a change in those dates. Normal legislation cannot change those dates. The Supreme Court can constructively amend it for it is obviously flawed and could result in nobody being president.
The only possible solution is to amend the 20th Amendment and order a new election. The Supreme Court is in a corner. This is like the Dread Scott Decision whereby in trying to prevent a civil war, they helped create it. Chief Justice Taney ruled that any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the U.S. Constitution. He was trying to avoid the question of slavery which would have sparked the war if the court said slavery was illegal.
The court tried to steer down the middle avoiding the slavery issue and just ruling that Africans were not citizens of the United States and thus were not entitled to its rights. That was seriously wrong for, from the beginning of the country, the USA created “territorial jurisdiction” because if you were British and committed even murder in France, the French king was not permitted to punish you but sent you back in chains to your king. We were all just property of the king in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the Dread Scott decision was wrong for the US crafted territorial jurisdiction meaning if a British citizen committed murder in the USA, he was tried and not sent back to his king. To do so, non-citizens were still entitled to all Constitutional rights. Hence, Dred Scott was facially just wrong.
It is obvious that the Supreme Court was trying to avoid the question of Slavery. That warranted civil war BECAUSE there was no civilized way to resolve the slavery issue. I fear that we have returned to Dred Scott. If the Supreme Court rules that the vote is corrupt and discards all mail-in votes, Trump wins and the Left riots. If the Supreme Court rules for Biden, then as they try to change the fundamental system of the country, the Trump supporters will go to war.
The ONLY way out I see is to declare the 20th Amendment unconstitutional for its lack of a process in the middle of a national emergency making the election impossible. Put Pence in charge temporarily and call for a new election banning mail-ins other than people actually unable to vote such as invalids or those overseas. Then, perhaps the nation MIGHT accept the winner. Otherwise, as Julius Caesar said, people will still believe what they want to believe.