Like Asking the Mob to Reverse a Hit: Paul Lehto in Appeals Court

[babylonsister]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_e___070110_like_asking_the_mob_.htm

January 10, 2007 at 08:50:00

Like Asking the Mob to Reverse a Hit: Paul Lehto in Appeals Court

by Mark E. Smith

ORAL ARGUMENTS ON CA50 ELECTION LAWSUIT HEARD IN APPELLATE COURT

Monday, January 8, 2007, San Diego, CA

snip//


Paul explained clearly that if Congress wants to alter State election procedures, according to the Constitution they have to do it by enacting a law, and that the swearing in ceremony is not a law and cannot change State election procedures.

Paul explained that the federal government does not have sovereignty over the States with regard to elections. When this country was formed, the states allowed certain powers to the federal government and retained other powers to the individual States. In the case of elections the State and federal government are sister sovereigns, and because the States have more experience with elections, the feds usually defer to them.

Elections are the manner in which We the People transfer authority from us to our representatives, and the way in which the federal government obtains the consent of the governed. Without this consent, although Paul felt no need to say this aloud because it is totally obvious, a government is neither democratic nor legitimate.

Paul reiterated his earlier arguments, including those made in the brief he and Ken filed with this court, that Congress cannot defeat the will of the voters by simply swearing someone in before all the votes have been counted, and that, if they could do so, there is no clear line as to when they could do so. If they can do it before all the votes have been counted and the election certified, there would be nothing to stop them from doing it before the election even took place. Paul said that if this were true, Congress could simply ignore elections and just swear in their friends, thereby removing jurisdiction from the courts and eliminating the Constitutional right of We the People to elect our legislators.

The court has taken the case under submission and we are awaiting their decision.

It was interesting to see a dramatic example of how a powerful few can attempt to deprive the majority of our rights. The defense seemed totally unaware that this was their purpose in defending the indefensible.

more...

[Kurovski]

1. K&R.(nt)

[Stevepol]

2. #5 Bingo!

[Morgana LaFey]

3. K&R

[kster]

4. K&R...nt

[Land Shark]

5. Thanks babylonsister! (and Mark E Smith for writing this kind review)

I appreciate it.... --Paul Lehto

[babylonsister]

8. My pleasure, Mr. Lehto, and thank you! nt

[Senator]

6. Uh Oh ... serious Constitutional foot fault there I'm afraid

Not that it's really material to the case, but when this Union was formed states "allowed" nothing. They are not parties to the contract known as the US Constitution. Sovereignty lies exclusively with The People themselves, as the contract is between and among them alone (and their descendents).

States appear in the US Constitution only as entities to be charged with subordinate functions. They are nothing like "sister sovereigns" (which is frankly, oxymoronic).

With the possible technical exception of Texas*, states never held any legal or defacto sovereignty. They joined a Confederation as colonies and that Confederation was entirely superceded by the Union. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention represented residents of geographical areas and not a sovereign government entity.

Like with the Second Amendment, there has been a great deal of neofascist (anti-federalist) "scholarship" trying to revise history under the banner of "states rights" (they have none). But this is just one more mechanism of concentrating power in a place where it might be more easily manipulated by an anti-democratic minority.

Still none of that's really material to the case. While the Dems dealt with this issue correctly on "swearing-in day" with Rush Holt's confirmation that no prejudice was being applied to the ongoing contest of FL-13, the failure of the Reps to do so does not presume they intended such prejudice and were doing anything other than trying to violate existing law to steal the election.

The same is true of the BushvGore Edict. You can put the words on paper into an oven and call it biscuits if you want, but it's still election theft. And in so far as it weakens our federal democracy, it is an attack tantamount to treason.

---
* There was a period of time when Texas may well have been an independent sovereign entity. But joining the Union would have superceded any authority derived from their unusual pre-state status.


--

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. hmm...

The phrase "sister sovereigns" does nothing for me either, but the states do retain sovereignty where it isn't overridden by the Constitution. They aren't merely "charged with subordinate functions." I'm not an expert in all the different senses of "sovereignty," but the concept of "(U.S.) state sovereignty" isn't simply a fixture of states-rights nuts -- at least, not if I can trust the CRS.

[Senator]

10. The Neo-GOP CRS ?

They dance to the same tune as the rest of the beltway -- just with less enthusiasm. And I didn't say the anti-federalist "scholarship" hadn't been somewhat successful.

Much of this winds up in semantics, but an amendable Constitution can always override. Ergo, no sovereignty.

--

[Land Shark]

9. there is such a thing as state sovereignty

while the reach of congressional power under the commerce clause especially is large, it does wax and wane every decade or so under Supreme Court holdings. One of the more recent wanings of congressional power was in a case that said congress could not punish gun possession with a certain distance of public (state) schools.

In the specific context of elections, the sovereignty (separation, if you will) is more pronounced. The tradition of state control of state elections is so powerful that even national legislation may be ineffective if that legislation alters the way states run elections for state and local office concurrent with elections for federal office. (McIntyre v. Fallahay, 766 F.2d 1078, 1084 (7th Cir. 1985) (citing
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 27 L. Ed. 2d 272, 91 S. Ct. 260 (1970).).

So then why does HAVA also affect state elections, you may ask? Because states choose to have state elections at the same time as national ones, so the same voting machines and regs must be followed. But states could, and maybe someday one or more will, choose to hold state elections on their own days, in order to avoid federal control. The Southern states flirted with this but it ultimately wouldn't work because the federal power under the 14th amendment to battle discrimination was particularly strong with the long history of discrimination in the south. But without that long history, it would be unconstitutional for the feds to attempt to affect or regulate STATE elections, as opposed to their Art. I, sec 5 power to make laws regarding Federal elections (which, as I said earlier, and to confuse things, the states often CHOOSE to follow, though for efficiency reasons or because they accept federal funds with strings attached).

Odd as it may sound the term "sister sovereigns" is used, and states' rights are at a high point when it comes to STATE (as opposed to federal) elections). With federal elections, the congress would have to point to a LAW it passed to specifically override the states rights that otherwise exist under Art. I section 4 to operate all elections, state or federal.

[Senator]

11. theory v. practice...

...can make for unproductive discussion. Add the amount of sematics involved in this and well, you see why I was very reluctant to even waste a few minutes of your valuable and effective time and effort on it.

If it wasn't such an insidious and odious bulwark of the anti-federalist/neofascist (i.e., might makes right) agenda I wouldn't have picked the nit.

But "rights" are not "granted," they are "observed." And that which is granted, even if "unenumerated," can be ungranted -- particularly by an amendable Constitution. That is the theoretical bottom line on sovereignty.

The defacto bottom line, of course, is who's "allowed" to shoot at whom. And that's never been the "several states."

---

[formercia]

12. The key to a final takeover

"Paul reiterated his earlier arguments, including those made in the brief he and Ken filed with this court, that Congress cannot defeat the will of the voters by simply swearing someone in before all the votes have been counted, and that, if they could do so, there is no clear line as to when they could do so. If they can do it before all the votes have been counted and the election certified, there would be nothing to stop them from doing it before the election even took place. Paul said that if this were true, Congress could simply ignore elections and just swear in their friends, thereby removing jurisdiction from the courts and eliminating the Constitutional right of We the People to elect our legislators."



This is why this case is so important.

It will be interesting how the case law made here will be used to argue the election case in Florida where the Congress may intervene to make sure the 18000 dienfranchised votes are properly counted and the proprietary software gets examined.

[formercia]

13. what do I know

I'm not a lawyer.

I hope they have a good library at the concentration camp so I can study for the Bar.

[rman]

14. Looks like that to me to

Maybe not "final" but certainly a step towards takeover.

Though i to am not a lawyer.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. But that was what happened on the occasion of the 2000 selection, isn't it, Paul?

The election, in fact, proved to be totally redundant; its effect rendered null and void by the Supreme Court, even to the extent of their ordaining that the vote count should not be completed.

[Land Shark]

17. 2000 - judicial termination of elections, 2006 - legislative branch termination of elections

that's the main difference

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. Thanks, Paul. Such nuances(!!!!!) go over my head, unless someone

paints the picture with a broad brush ....!

[truedelphi]

16. K & R'ed n/t