• October 16, 2021

TWJ Exclusive: New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney

December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

Advertisement – story continues below

if( FFADS.units.Top && FFADS.units.Top.ad_type == ‘custom’ && FFADS.units.Top.custom_ads && ! getCookie( ‘ff_subbed’ ) ) {
document.getElementById( ‘Top’ ).innerHTML = FFADS.units.Top.custom_ads[0].code;
if( ! FFADS.units.Top.lazy_load ) eval( FFADS.units.Top.custom_ads[0].rendering_script );
}
else if( FFADS.units.Top && ! getCookie( ‘ff_subbed’ ) ) {
if( ‘To’ != ‘SB’ && ‘To’ != ‘SA’ && FFADS.use_fixed_containers ) {
let max_wh = firefly_size_list_to_max_wh( FFADS.units.Top.sizes );
let el = document.querySelector( ‘#Top’ );
if( ‘To’ != ‘SA’ && FFADS.slide_pixels ) {
max_wh[1] += parseInt( FFADS.slide_pixels );
el.classList.add( ‘sliding’ );
}
el.style.width = max_wh[0] + ‘px’;
el.style.height = max_wh[1] + ‘px’;
el.classList.add( ‘fixed-size’ );
}
googletag.cmd.push( function() {
FFADS.debug( ‘googletag.displaying Top’ );
googletag.display( ‘Top’ );
} );
}
else {
document.querySelector( ‘#Top-ad’ ).style.display = ‘none’;}

googletag.cmd.push( function() {
FFADS.debug( ‘(maybe) googletag.displaying IS1’ );
if ( FFADS.is1 ) googletag.display( FFADS.is1 );>

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the

Source: The Gateway Pundit

cruznewslive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This