A little known clause of the Constitution has a huge bearing on the Texas election lawsuit. Guarantee Clause of the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government" (Art IV, Sec. 4).

posted 126 days ago by PowerWordKek 126 days ago by PowerWordKek +27 / -0

As the facts alleged by the State of Texas demonstrate, the 2020 elections ... represent the antithesis of a republican form of government. An elite group of sitting Democrat officers in each of the Defendant States coordinated with the Democrat party to illegally and unconstitutionally change the rules established by the Legislatures in the Defendant States, thereby depriving the people of their states a free and fair election — the very basis of a republican form of government.

The Guarantee Clause places an obligation upon the United States to ensure that such an unlawful election not be carried to fruition. This Court is the sole forum available for the enforcement of that obligation under the circumstances faced by the nation today

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/a_little_known_clause_of_the_constitution_has_a_huge_bearing_on_the_texas_election_lawsuit.html

8 comments

8 comments share save hide report block hide child comments

Comments (8)

sorted by:

▲ 2 ▼

– Billygoat65 2 points 126 days ago +2 / -0

We’re going to see if the Constitution is still the law of the land real soon. If not, the union is hereby dissolved.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– deleted 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

▲ 1 ▼

– JoePlumber 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

Unfortunately for this argument to work SCOTUS would have to overturn their own longstanding precedent from Luther v. Borden (1849), later reaffirmed, which held the entire Guarantee Clause is nonjusticiable.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– deleted 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

▲ 1 ▼

– JoePlumber 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

IDK what you mean by this but this clause has been heard in two major rulings from the court that both found the term "republican form of government" to not have an agreeable definition and therefore they held that the term is a political one and nonjusticiable. That isn't changing the Constitution, it's interpreting it.

This clause is not useful to the TX suit at all and that's why it is not referenced in any of the filings with the Court. The Equal Protections Clause and the Electors Clause are much more central to this case.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– deleted 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

▲ 1 ▼

– JoePlumber 1 point 126 days ago +1 / -0

Do you really think that SCOTUS overturns 200 year old precedent cases based on the definition you pulled out off dictionary.com?

In cases such as Luther v. Borden (1849) and Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Oregon (1912), the Supreme Court held that the enforcement of the Guarantee Clause is a nonjusticiable political question, to be decided by Congress or the President instead of the courts.

Scholars have commented that these decisions are consistent with the statement in Federalist No. 43 that “States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter.”

In Colegrove v. Green (1946), a challenge of state legislative apportionments, the Supreme Court declared that the republican form of government clause cannot be used as a basis to challenge state electoral malapportionment in court.

In 2019, the Supreme Court reiterated in Rucho v. Common Cause (a case about political gerrymandering) that the Guarantee Clause is not a justiciable issue capable of being litigated in court.