This is not OK!

Re-Posted from the Canada Free press By Matthew Vadum — MatthewVadum.com—— Bio and Archives—December 12, 2020

Did the United States Constitution just die?

The cowards at the Supreme Court denied Texas standing in Texas v. Pennsylvania, the last major lawsuit standing between the drooling, senile Chinese puppet Joe Biden and the presidency.

It is a dark day for America.

Apparently, the vote was 7 to 2. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Here is the wording of the Supreme Court order from today:

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

This is not okay!

Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Dec 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

I have been warning that those in Washington DO NOT like outsiders. Only 106 republicans out of 196 joined Texas demonstrating that behind the curtain, nearly 50% of republican politicians prefer Trump to leave because he is not one of them. The Supreme Court avoided ruling claiming Texas had no standing which is completely false. Not giving a decision, either way, will propel civil unrest as each side claims they are right. Already people in Texas are talking about secession might be the answer for pro-Trump states. This time, we are approaching the break up of the United States and it may indeed be the only solution. No side has the right to oppress the other and the Supreme Court will NOT defend the people or the Constitution. The rule of law was the foundation of civilization, and refusing to comply with that duty condemns the nation to oblivion.

The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny the petition and I do not say that as being supportive of the action. The only way to settle this dispute is to rule then both sides would have no choice but to settle down. This way, the election will always be in dispute. Biden got more votes in each of these swing states than Hillary or Obama which was NOT the case in any other state. This is indicative of fraud and it should have been addressed yes or no. This election was STOLEN not be Biden, but by an international agenda which has taken over the entire West and they needed Trump removed. Just look at the Agenda 2030 coming from Klaus Schwab and you will see the real future we face. This is the man who is destroying the future of civilization, will fail in his Marxist dreams, and will leave the West in shambles as the financial capital migrates to China.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

The Judiciary Act of 1925 held that the Supreme Court would have the discretion to select what it wants to hear in direct violation of the Constitution, which has NEVER been addressed. The Constitution ONLY established the Supreme Court as part of a tripartite government and the separation of powers as laid out as essential to constrain tyranny by Montesquieu, who was also the inspiration for the Second Amendment which was to keep citizens armed rather than maintain standing armies to prevent war.

As such, the lower courts were created ONLY by statute under Congress and could just as easily be shut down. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court and every Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office – (1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and (2) the Judicial Oath.

Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion to not hear cases. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this time when it defined “discretion” by saying “the term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.” Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931). This means that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. The Supreme Court also said, “it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.” Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936). When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men.

Now, turning to the Texas lawsuit, I agree with Justices Alito and Thomas that the court had “no discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

This case squarely fell within the original jurisdiction since it was a case “between two or more states” and therefore, this denial was in itself unconstitutional relying on the discretion granted illegally by the Judiciary Act of 1925. Obviously, the majority of the court simply did not want to get into this election dispute. Like Dread Scott, which tried to avoid the issue of slavery by ruling that blacks had no rights under the Constitution to avoid ruling which led to the Civil War, the Supreme Court has once again condemned the country to Civil War for is the Democrats try to implement the Agenda 2030, they will unleash violence no different than the Russian revolution. Klaus Schwab knows this will lead to revolution and has flipped to claiming if his agenda is NOT adopted there will be a revolution from the BLM movement he helped to inspire.

The Merits of the Texas Suit

Texas SCt suit

The Texas lawsuit turned on the Electoral College Clause.

“Constitutional Background
The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its Presidential Electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2

As set forth in the Complaint, executive and judicial officials made significant changes to the legislatively defined election laws in the Defendant States. … Taken together, these non-legislative changes did away with statutory ballot-security measures for absentee and mail-in ballots such as signature verification, witness requirements, and statutorily authorized secure ballot drop-off locations”

There is no doubt that they had an argument and that it fell squarely within the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas recognized that. The fact that the other 7 justices denied cert merely shows they did not want to rule on this matter which is an exercise of discretion that has now doomed the USA to continuing violence. In doing so, they have violated the civil right of the entire nation and condemned the world to the ruthless tyranny coming out of the World Economic Forum. Based upon information and belief, this entire “Build Back Better” movement has been designed by the marketing firm Edelman which already appears to be pushing this new world order and is also in a partnership with the World Economic Forum.

Here you have John Kerry claiming there is no return to normal because what existed before didn’t work despite the fact that even black unemployment was at a historic low. It didn’t work because the people voted for Trump instead of a career politician. Economically, the economy was booming until they started their attack using this virus.

Then you have Boris Johnson stating he will retrain adults for the new economy confirming he is deliberately using the lockdowns to destroy the economy for this New Green World Order of Schwab!

Five Heads of States/Government are all preaching Build Back Better – French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Georgian Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari – 32 speakers from 23 countries, including civil society leaders, ministers, high-level representatives from OECD, IMF and World Bank, and 1,000 live viewers from 100+ countries.

There is nothing left for doubt that this entire Agenda 2030 amounts to the take over of the United States. While many questioned Biden’s mental capacity to be president, this has NEVER been a contest between Trump v Biden. This has really been Trump v Schwab. This entire agenda of Schwab who is behind this power grab to hand it to the United Nations has been so well organized and Trump has been so outnumbered as not merely just Europe and Canada against him, but the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and Schwab’s World Economic Forum. This is Schwab pushing his new version of Marxism. They are using the lockdowns NOT for a virus, but for climate change.

Schwab and crew have bought the media which is always left and this is why we have fake news. There is no way they will allow any comment to the contrary. This is the overthrow of everything and we are not entitled to put this to a vote. They are simply engaging in tyranny with a smile. This is the end of democracy for we are not smart enough to even vote.

This is not simply Communism where you will own nothing, this is feudalism for the super-rich will retain their wealth which is why Big Tech has been pushing their agenda to get rid of Trump.

WHY EVERYONE HAS STANDING IN A CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION

In the Supreme Court decision Bush v Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000), it did raise the equal protection problem with different election procedures nationally. The court held Per Curiam:

Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set by federal law for resolving these controversies.

There were indications that the Court recognized the need for nationwide electoral reform under Due Process and the Equal Protection Clause. How states do their own elections do not impact other states. However, election anyone federally impacts the rights of everyone. Looking at the lower courts, at least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, an Eastern District Court in New York heard a case, Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of NY, 435 F. Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), where it was alleged that voter fraud in several urban locations took place not unlike what we see right now. In that decision, the court maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections. It held:

“It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.”

Interestingly, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all. Still, experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again. If there is a violation of rules that would change the election outcome, then the courts would be compelled to act and federally this is why Texas is suing Pennsylvania. Now 17 other states are joining Texas v Pennsylvania. What Pennsylvania and Georgia for that matter do to try to prevent recounts impacts the Equal Protection of the Law and Due Process rights of everyone else in the entire country.

ELECTION VIOLATED OUR CIVIL RIGHTS

Within the Legal Code Title 18, Section 241, it has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.

Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).

Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).

Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th
Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).

Green New Deal: Climate change is just another name for social justice, which is just another name for wealth redistribution and totalitarianism

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By Jack Dini —— Bio and Archives—December 10, 2020

n a major speech in Jakarta in February 2014, John Kerry claimed that “climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”  ¹

Kerry recently commented on Covid-19: “It’s a tragically teachable moment. I don’t say this in a partisan way. But the parallels between COVID-19 and climate change are screaming at us, both positive and negative. You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted, one with catastrophic consequences, the other with even greater risk if we don’t reverse course. The long-term parallels between this pandemic and tomorrow’s gathering storm of climate crisis are more clear. If the economic devastation of the coronavirus pandemic is costly today, the cost of climate inaction will match—if not exceed—our current expenditures, which is why the next administration must act with urgency on day one.” ²

Now he will be in in a position to work the issues of ‘climate pandemic’ and ‘mass destruction.’

Kerry, a former secretary of state, senator and Democratic presidential nominee, will lead the country’s reentry into global climate politics in a new role that will elevate climate change as a priority of President-elect Joe Biden.  ³

Kerry ‘will fight climate change full-time as Special Presidential Envoy for Climate,’ according to a statement by Biden’s transition team. “America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is,” Kerry tweeted after the announcement.

Kerry, a long time Biden ally who turns 77 next month, said that he intends to use his new post to tackle the world’s most pressing environmental problem.
“The work we began with the Paris Agreement is far from done,” he said. “I’m returning to government to get America back on track to address the biggest challenge of this generation and those that will follow. The climate crisis demands nothing less than all hands on deck.”

Yet, Kerry has admitted at the 2015 Paris climate conference that US emissions cuts would not change the climate, but he hailed the agreement as one of his proudest moments.  “The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees—if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic gas emissions—guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough too offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions—remember what I just said—all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough—not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”  ⁴

Just recently in addressing the G20, President Trump stated that the Paris agreement ‘was not designed to save the environment. It was designed to kill the America economy.’ It looks like Kerry agrees with Trump’s assessment of the effect of the Paris agreement on climate. Given Kerry’s anti-American history, President Trump’s entire assessment of the Paris climate agreement is likely correct. ⁵

Some other Kerry history:

• Kerry, along with Barbara Boxer, pushed for climate change legislation in the Senate. This bill, the proposed Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733), designed to severely restrict greenhouse gas emissions, would have placed an enormous burden on American families—higher gasoline prices, higher heating costs, higher energy taxes, and higher unemployment. ⁶ The Kerry-Boxer Bill didn’t pass, But that hasn’t slowed Kerry’s crusade against global warming.
• Kerry said that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State. ⁷
• In a keynote address to the Global Table Food and Agriculture Conference, Kerry made veiled swipes at the Australian government’s lack of climate and energy policy. “We just can’t sit on our asses and leave the political process to neanderthals who don’t believe in the future.” ⁸
• He raved in a Washington Post op-ed about the following:
  • CO2 made Boko Haram kidnap hundreds of innocent girls
  • CO2 is causing Norfolk Naval station to sink
  • Debating CO2 will kill US soldiers ⁹

Kerry recently said,  “America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent national security threat it is. I’m proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate movement to take on this crisis as the President’s Climate Envoy.” ¹⁰

And what are the views of the young leaders? Green New Deal proponent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind the Green New Deal is to overhaul the ‘entire economy.’ “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as how do you change the entire economy thing,” he said. ¹¹

Green New Deal: Climate change is just another name for social justice, which is just another name for wealth redistribution and totalitarianism

The Green New Deal is recognition from the most devoted environmentalists that climate change is just another name for social justice, which is just another name for wealth redistribution and totalitarianism—a dictatorship. ¹²

Exit polling from the 2020 election shows that the climate issue was simply not a voter priority anywhere. The high mark for climate seems to have been Colorado where 9% of voters said climate was their priority. But in states such as Florida, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even Biden’s Delaware, a mere 3% of voters said climate was their priority.  ¹³

Clearly, this is a message Kerry will ignore. 

References

1. Myron Ebell, “Secretary of State John Kerry explains the greenhouse effect,” globalwarming.org, September 16, 2014
2. Marc Morano, “Biden taps John Kerry as Presidential climate envoy—expect merging of Covid & climate—Kerry: ‘You could just as easily replace the words climate change with Covid-19’” , climatedepot.com, November 23, 2020
3. Brady Dennis et al., “Biden names John Kerry as presidential climate envoy,” washingtonpost.com, November 23, 2020
4. Steve Milloy, “At the 2015 Paris climate conference, John Kerry admitted US emissions cuts were pointless,” November 23, 2020
5. Steve Milloy, “JunkScience.com statement on Biden selection of John Kerry as Climate Envoy,’ junkscience.com, November 23, 2020
6. David Kreutzer et al., “What Boxer-Kerry will cost the economy,” Heritage Foundation #2365, January 26, 2010
7. Joanne Nova, “John Kerry: air conditioner, fridge gas, as a big threat as ISIS,” joannenova.au.com, July 24, 2016
8. Lisa Martin, “John Kerry says we can’t leave climate emergency to ‘neanderthals’ in power,” amp.theguardian.com, September 3, 2019
9. John Kerry, “Disband your climate denial panel, Mr. President,” washingtonpost.com, February 25, 2019
10. John Kerry, Twitter, November 23, 2020
11. Jack Crowe, “AOC’s chief of staff admits the green new deal is not about climate change,” nationaireview.com, July 12, 2019
12. Hayden Ludwig, “The green road to serfdom,” capital research.org, December 24, 2019
13. Steve Milloy, “One clear election loser: the green new deal,” msn.com, November 7, 2020

Armstrong Economics Blog/Canada Re-Posted Dec 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: SERIOUSLY WE WILL BE LABELED AS TIN FOIL HAT NUTS NOT TO TAKE THE SHOT
AND IF YOU OWN A BUSINESS WILL YOU BE SHUT DOWN BECAUSE ITS A PUBLIC PLACE!
I KNOW RESTAURANT OWNERS.

CK

REPLY: There is little doubt that the career politicians have gotten together and decided that since they cannot continue to borrow indefinitely with these artificial interest rates, the scheme is to change the entire economy and usurp Capitalism to transform it into a Feudalistic Socialistic system. In Ontario, they are threatening business owners by saying they cannot operate anymore without receiving a vaccination. This entire situation is getting out of hand.

Once the population reaches 40% with their eyes open, that is when things start to become more of a revolution. It all depends on the people, and they are counting on the people being sheep. But that will not last forever. But they have successfully brainwashed the younger generation into leftist agendas. When they see that they will lose their freedom, then they will start to question what has taken place.

Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics Re-Posted Dec 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Klaus Schwab, who is trying to take over the world with his Stakeholder Economics & Fedualist-Socialism, has suddenly realized that his efforts to destroy capitalism as we know it is also undermining his precious World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been forced to start to slash its workforce. Since Europe has followed his recommendations, his Fourth Industrial Revolution gathering can no longer be held in Davos or on the Bürgenstock, and he has been forced to move it to Singapore because of the coronavirus crisis he has helped to exploit.

I warned at our World Economic Conference, which we had the largest audience in our history opposite of Schwab, that these people think they can destroy the world economy and “build back better” by redirecting how the economy should work from their elitist position as overlords. Schwab’s “Great Reset” is also impacting his WEF. The pandemic is forcing layoffs at the WEF — something that will benefit humanity! It allegedly seems to be Edleman who has come up with this marketing plan they are all following.

It has been a major turning point for Schwab and his WEF, which has been used to only success and countries pouring money into his coffers. The World Economic Forum has cut around 9% of its jobs in recent months and it seems to be entering a crash mode itself into 2022. That is good news for the rest of us.

The WEF is not cheap. The membership fees range from 60,000 to 600,000 francs per year ($67,337- $673,370). Tickets for participation in the WEF cost extra: around 25,000 francs each ($28,061). In return, the business elites have access to a platform that brings them together with heads of state, scientists, and Hollywood stars. Without these people showing up, Schwab will have no attendance. Our cocktail event at our World Economic Conferences is famous for networking where people meet everyone from around the globe.

Re-Posted from GrrrGraphics.com DEC 9, 2020 AT 10:38 AM Bang Bang with Fang Fang

Suspected of being a long-term spy for Communist China, Christine Fang, aka, ‘Fang Fang’ expended a lot of time and energy as she weaved her way into American politics. Her job was to collect personal information on politicians. She would help fundraise for her assignments, which included those in Congress as well as prominent mayors. One mayor couldn’t understand why Fang Fang would have sex with him and was told she did it to help ‘improve her English.’

She was definitely entangled with Swalwell until Federal authorities warned him about her suspected spying for the Chicoms. He then disassociated himself from her and she quickly beat a path out of the country—presumably back to China.

This matter only underlines the hypocrisy of Swalwell. He got on a high horse and claimed Trump was in the pocket of Putin, when in reality Xi was attempting to pocket the callow and corruptible Swalwell.

We know many Democrats have been swayed and influenced by the Chinese communist party. The nationalist Trump put an end to China’s hopes for a while, but if ‘China Joe’ does manage to make the cheating stick and captures the White House, look for the Chicoms to one again have more say over what happens in our country. Too many Democrats such as Biden have been all too willing to sell out their office to the highest bidder.

—Ben Garrison

19 State Attorneys General or five legal experts will end up with egg on their faces when the Supreme Court rules on Texas’s motion

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By David Singer —— Bio and Archives—December 10, 2020

he Supreme Court has now ordered Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to respond to Texas’s motion to file a complaint against them regarding their States’ conduct of the 2020 elections by 3 p.m. Thursday, December 10.

President Trump has indicated he will seek leave to intervene in the case whilst Attorneys General for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, and Louisiana have issued statements in support of Texas’s action.

Related: 18 States Join Texas In General Election Supreme Court Lawsuit Against 4 Swing States

The Texas filing was initially met with scorn and derision by: 

Rick Hasen – an election law expert and professor at the University of California:

 “the dumbest case I’ve ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the Supreme Court. This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit,”

CBS News’ election law expert – David Becker:

“Calling this garbage might be generous.”

Steve Vladeck – a professor at the University of Texas’s School of Law:

“dangerous, offensive and wasteful. It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category,”

 Texas appellate lawyer Raffi Melkonian:  

“it doesn’t make any sense and is bad and has no chance of success at all. Just want to be clear on that”

Eugene Mazo from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law: 

“This is the dumbest case any lawyer has ever seen, and the Supreme Court won’t touch it. Really, this is the craziest case of them all. Unbelievable

Texas claims that:

• Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and the legislation did not include a severability clause.
• Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.
• Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification. Michigan’s legislature has not ratified these changes, and its election laws do not include a severability clause.
• Wisconsin Elections Commission and other local officials unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.

Texas has argued:

• The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors. 
• Non-legislative actors lack authority to amend or nullify election statutes. Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104. 
• The actions taken by the above officials constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials in violation of the Electors Clause. 
• Electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.

Texas has further argued:

• The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a State. Bush II, 531 U.S. at 107. 136. The one-person, one-vote principle requires counting valid votes and not counting invalid votes. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 554-55; Bush II, 531 U.S. at 103 (“the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements”).
• The actions taken by the above officials created differential voting standards in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and violated the one-person, one-vote principle. 

The constitutional issues raised directly affect the 2020 election results.  

19 State Attorneys General or five legal experts will end up with egg on their faces when the Supreme Court rules on Texas’s motion.