At the constitutional debates in New York Alexander Hamilton asserted that:
The true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Representation is imperfect in proportion as the current of popular favor is checked.
Opposite to this republican democracy is the phony form of democracy preferred by Joseph Stalin where: “those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.” In this election-fraud based phony-democracy the will of the people is annihilated, creating a definitively unrepublican form.
This form must never be allowed a live birth. If election fraud ever succeeds even once in being the key determinant of one faction’s rise to majority control over the powers of American government then our republic will be lost forever. Not only will the election stealers will be far better placed to steal elections going forward but being a bunch of criminals they will inevitably also deploy multiplying other ways of abusing their authority and imposing tyranny.
We have only ever had two choices: republican liberty or tyranny, a fork which now reaches its crux as all evidence points to massive electoral fraud by our bottomlessly criminal Democratic Party (voting machines designed by communist dictators for the express purpose of stealing elections, not allowing observers, 4am 100K out-of-custody ballot dumps for Biden, etcetera ad nauseum.) The definitively unrepublican form, where elections outcomes are determined by the vote counters, not the voters, is making a concerted bid across several states for control of the nation.
It is such assaults on our very form of government that the Article IV section 4 guarantee clause was written to defend against:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…
This is our Constitution’s most direct protection against election fraud and it authorizes whatever actions are needed to fend off usurpation. That is part of what the word “guarantee” means: that when it comes to preserving government of the people by the people and for the people the available remedies are whatever it takes. If any necessary means is ever barred then unrepublican government wins and the promised guarantee against it is not fulfilled.
Another meaning of “guarantee” is to try to eliminate or minimize risk. On this grounds the Supreme Court never should have allowed our Democrat-run states to enact their host of fraud-enabling election rules.
There is no incompatibility between election security and elections that are easily open to all legal voters. We put such an election process together in Iraq in very short order. It is a travesty that in the fraudulent name of protecting legal voters Democrats were allowed to burn our own election security to the ground.
When states implement election methods that are readily vulnerable to voter fraud and election fraud the only reason is because they want to enable election stealing. The Courts have a duty under the guarantee clause to weed out these planted vulnerabilities and the president now has a guarantee clause duty to overcome the Stalinist coup these vulnerabilities are enabling.
The guarantee clause places a check on the power that the Constitution gives to the states to run the nation’s elections
How can the republican guarantee provide a primary defense against election fraud at the federal level when it is written as a limit on the forms that state governments can take? Because it is paired in a check-and-balance arrangement with two other provisions of the Constitution (Article I section 4 and Article II section 1) that empower each state to establish its own election rules and conduct its own elections for federal as well as state officers. This allocation of election authority to the states is designed to maintain state sovereignty and provide a counter-balance to federal power but it also introduces a vulnerability.
The framers biggest concern was always to keep our republic from being usurped by a tyrant or a coalition of would-be tyrants (“a republic if you can keep it”). State control of elections are a possible point of entry for tyrannical unrepublican phony democracy, not just at the state level but in the election of federal officers, so the framers added two checks.
First the Article I section 4 “elections clause” includes an oversight role for Congress, which is empowered to “make or alter” state election regulations. This is a preventative measure. If some states were to intentionally introduce vulnerabilities into their election systems – say through mail-in voting schemes that basically helicopter-drop ballots all over the state then allow these ballots to be counted with almost no verification requirements under an “all votes must be counted” standard – then Congress could step in and shut down this invitation to mass vote fraud.
But Congress might do nothing, if as today one of its chambers is controlled by the party of vote fraud. Thus the founders wisely did not trust Congress either and added a second check on top of the first, one that is not just preventative but can be used to cut down any unrepublican form of government that succeeds in springing up, be it in the form of phony state-run elections for state offices or phony state-run elections for the state’s federal officeholders.
This is the guarantee clause, sitting like a bright red fire axe in a windowed frame with a sign that says “in case of unrepublican ignition break glass.” Judges, politicians and pundits all invoke the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The guarantee clause is the one provision of the Constitution that actually states this explicitly. When our republic itself is threatened there is a duty, and an allocation of power, to prevent its loss.
We are now in that emergency. In several states the people who count the votes are on the verge of getting away with stealing the 2020 elections from the electorates of those states and if they succeed they will in the process succeed in stealing the presidency and possibly even both houses of Congress.
Our Stalinist Democrats are on the verge of completing an election-stealing coup that will end our republic forever and our best tool for stopping them is the emergency power that the framers included for just this eventuality. Its first great advantage is that it authorizes whatever is needed to overcome an unrepublican phony democracy, otherwise the guarantee is not actually a guarantee. It’s second advantage is that there is no limit on what branch of the federal government may invoke it. The guarantee is issued by “The United States,” which touches all three federal branches.
Since the clause carries the whiff of grapeshot (confrontation with an unrepublican form of government) the obvious expectation is that primary enforcement responsibility would fall to the president, empowering him to initiate on his own authority whatever steps he deems necessary to restore real democracy, with no requirement that he first has to win any lawsuit or otherwise wait for judicial okay. Just as the president has inherent war powers so too he must have inherent guarantee clause powers.
For the other branches: the courts can also uphold the republican guarantee as a grounds for suit; Congress can call for it to be enforced; and ultimately We the People are also clearly invited, not just in the guarantee clause but in the Declaration of Independence, in the Second Amendment, and in many other places, to oppose an unrepublican form of government. We are all part of The United States.
Federal takeover of Georgia elections
Trump campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani has collected enough evidence of massive election fraud in Georgia to make it almost certain that candidate Trump received far more legal votes than candidate Biden, which provides more than enough grounds for President Trump to invoke the republican guarantee and order a federal takeover of the upcoming Georgia run-off elections. That candidate Trump is himself an aggrieved party does not in any way diminish President Trump’s constitutional duty to expunge the unrepublican phony-election form that has arisen in Georgia.
Under this federal takeover Georgia election law would no longer be in effect. The feds would make the election rules and, to fulfill the republican guarantee, would be obligated to put together the most open and honest elections in American history, clearly demonstrating that there is no actual conflict between an honest election process and a process that is easily open to all legal voters.
Use of the military makes sense because our armed forces have the manpower; they are the most respected institution in our society; and they follow orders. If we tell them to inspect every ballot in close concert with observers from all political parties who want to observe and with the press if they want to observe as well then our soldiers will follow every procedure just the way they are told, all the way up the line to the final vote tally.
They will check IDs, they will get signatures, they may ink fingers, if that is called for. Insecure recently added mail-in ballot procedures would be barred, reverting to a secure system of absentee balloting limited to cases of actual need. Other Democratic Party schemes for enabling vote fraud would also be rejected. In particular, there would be no use of purpose-built Dominion or Smartmatic election stealing software and machinery.
If this plan is implemented soon enough it might even be possible for the feds to hold the Georgia runoff elections on their already scheduled January 5th date but that would not be necessary. It would be helpful though if the federal takeover could at least be announced by December 13, since early mail in voting in Georgia begins on the 14th. It would be good not to have to invalidate any already submitted ballots.
Of course the Georgia state government is likely to sue over a federal takeover and the courts will at that point have to weigh in but the legitimacy of such federal action is straightforward. The massive evidence of election fraud in Georgia justifies the president’s assessment that Georgia’s election process is dishonest/unrepublican. Then there are the many intentional vulnerabilities to fraud that are built into the system. These add weight to the assessment that the constitutional guarantee of republican/honest elections is far from met.
In simplest terms, blatantly dishonest elections, full of documented criminal behavior, would be replaced with clearly honest elections. That is a huge net benefit in terms of constitutional values.
Under normal conditions federal takeover of any state’s elections would impose a huge cost in constitutional values since it would violate the Constitution’s allocation of electoral authority to the states, but once Georgia is seen to have adopted a definitively unrepublican form (a phony Stalinist “democracy” that is of by and for the vote counters) then any authority that the Georgia state government holds over the state’s elections becomes a negative, something the Constitution promises in the guarantee clause to expunge, not protect.
At that point the federal takeover of the state’s elections only produces benefits. The people get their votes honestly counted and no one is harmed. Election stealers are left crying because they can’t steal any more elections but in the eyes of the law it is a benefit, not a harm, when criminals stop getting away with crime.
In sum there is a strong and simple case to make under a very powerful constitutional provision. With a majority-honest Supreme Court, which we now seem to have, the Court shouldn’t be an obstacle to a federal takeover of Georgia’s runoff election, especially given the Court’s history with the guarantee clause.
How can the guarantee clause be powerful when SCOTUS has broadly described it as nonjusticiable?
If you have only ever learned one thing about the guarantee clause you probably know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found it to be “nonjusticiable”: they have decided that they cannot enforce it.
If it is not enforceable, doesn’t that make it weak? No.
SCOTUS has had trouble finding a way that the judiciary branch can enforce the republican guarantee, but with no imputation that the other branches of government cannot enforce it. Just the opposite: the reason the Court has declined to interpret the clause is because it keeps being raised in cases that involve conflicts that in the Court’s view can only be settled by the other branches of government.
If anything this enhances the president’s freedom to start enforcing the guarantee clause on his own authority. The courts are unlikely to interfere when the Supreme Court’s well established position is to stand back with its palms up saying: “don’t look at us, the courts can’t get involved in that guarantee clause stuff.”
As it turns out, the received wisdom about the guarantee clause being nonjusticiable under existing Court precedent is completely wrong, which is a very good thing. Here is what happened.
Every guarantee clause case that ever reached the Court ended up being declared nonjusticiable because it fell into one of two “political question problem” pitfalls, but each pitfall has also been avoided in some of the cases, showing that each type of political question problem can be gotten past. It is just a matter of bringing the right case, one that doesn’t raise either kind of political question problem.
I found this out twenty years ago when I sued the State of California pro se in a ballot access case that actually turned out to be just the kind of clean case that did not raise either kind of political question problem. If I could have gotten a judge to understand I could have brought the crucially important guarantee clause into active adjudication for the first time in our nation’s history, thus I appealed all the way to the Supreme Court thinking that maybe Justice Thomas would see the momentousness of the opportunity and grab it up. Alas, he is just one man.
And that is how I happen to know something about the republican guarantee. For details on the two kinds of political question problem and how they can both be avoided see my Supreme Court brief (the guarantee clause stuff is towards the end).
The viable path to adjudication that I discovered is important now because we want the Supreme Court to do more than stand back with its hands up. We need them in the fight, backing the effort to force honest elections. They should have been using the guarantee clause to weed out the Democrat’s intentionally planted election-fraud vulnerabilities for 50+ years now, but in the present moment the standard view of precedent is not all bad.
It is helpful that until the Supremes can be presented with the right case they at least are not likely to block a well designed guarantee clause enforcement effort that President Trump undertakes on his own initiative. According to received wisdom the Court ought in this circumstance to be loathe to interfere.
Step two: announce federal re-runs of the tainted 2020 House and Senate races, which will in turn require that finalization of the presidential selection process be delayed (otherwise the party accused of cheating, if it wins the presidency, will terminate the re-runs)
Guarantee clause enforcement could also be used to require federally managed re-runs of the 2020 general elections in a host of states where outcomes were most likely flipped by what the evidence says is massive election fraud. Re-running of House and Senate seats in those states could well give Republicans a majority in the House and strengthen the Senate majority that honest runoff elections in Georgia will most likely secure.
In constitutional terms this would be a huge pile of benefits raked in by enforcement of the guarantee clause: election results that come out differently when elections are honest! Constitutional values don’t get any weightier than that. But the only way these benefits of honest elections can be secured, the only way they can be guaranteed, is if completion of the presidential selection and inauguration process that is set out in the Constitution gets delayed by at least a few months.
It will take that long to re-run the tainted elections. Then there is the fact that one of the presidential candidates is the beneficiary of the cheating that the evidence says took place. If he becomes president before the tainted House and Senate races are re-run he will almost certainly cancel the re-runs, so the only way to guarantee the re-runs is to delay the inauguration.
Note that provisions for the possibility of a delayed inauguration are already set out in the Constitution:
20th Amendment, clause 3:
… If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.
Democrats will cry that any delay in completion of the presidential selection/inauguration process is an overthrow of our constitutional process but it is not true. The Constitution not only contemplates this possibility but has prepared for it.
Step 3: Delaying presidential selection/inauguration until down-ballot elections are re-run will afford time to also re-run the presidential election in the tainted states
Once a delay in the presidential selection and inauguration process is called for there is no reason that this delay should not also be used to re-run the tainted presidential contests, again conducted in maximally open and honest fashion by the federal government.
The constitutionally specified four year presidential term creates a timeliness issue for resolution of the presidential selection process but once a guarantee clause action is taken the timeliness issue flips. Instead of it being important to settle election disputes quickly it instead becomes important to not draw the schedule up short or the republican guarantee is not guaranteed, as it must be. Priority number one: guarantee that we still have a republic.
This would be the case whether delay was first called for in order to guarantee completed honest re-runs of tainted House and Senate races or whether it was first called for in order to guarantee completed honest re-runs of the presidential election in the tainted states. Either way the Supreme Court will end up having to weigh the competing sides of the constitutional conflict that is presented.
On one side is the importance of letting the republican guarantee be an actual guarantee, on the other is the significance of changing the dates on finalization of the presidential selection process by a couple of months this one time. Constitutional provisions give way to other constitutional provisions all the time and this one is pretty obvious: what is a couple months to make sure these decisive national elections are not stolen when the consequence if we do let them be stolen is that we lose our republic forever?
Thankfully that decision would be made by a majority-conservative Supreme Court. Given the chance to save the republic by making a sound legal decision they would likely take it. We just have to give them that chance.
When the Democrats lose the honest re-runs by a country mile they can throw whatever temper tantrums they want, and they will, but they will be exposed firstly as having tried and failed to steal the 2020 elections, then as a bunch of rioting criminals going forward.
As a result, this round of America’s long Civil War with the Democratic Party should be won with relatively little bloodshed, prayers be to God, and we’ll have a chance to clean up our election system going forward.
Alec Rawls posts intermittently at his own Error Theory blog