They
May Be Guilty of Sedition
December
11, 2020
Sedition. It’s a
powerful word. It is different from but similar to treason. Treason is betrayal
of one’s nation for the benefit of a foreign nation. Benedict Arnold, the
epitome of American treason, betrayed the colonies for which he supposedly was
fighting to the British. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg betrayed their country to
the Soviet Union. Sedition is betrayal of one’s own country internally. Subversion
of one’s country’s constitution is a form of sedition. Words or acts intended
to undermine the established order of one’s country can be sedition. Lawful
efforts to effect change in one’s country, including changes in the
country’s constitution, are of course
not sedition. Acting outside the country’s legal structure to defeat or nullify
the lawful functioning of the country’s institutions can be sedition. Whatever
its legal definition, sedition is an effort by a citizen of a country to defeat
the proper functioning of the country’s foundational institutions.
On November 3,
2020, former Vice President Biden won the 2020 presidential election defeating
incumbent president Donald Trump by a significant margin, significant at least
by the standards of American presidential elections. The electoral college is
scheduled to vote on Monday, December 14, to make Biden’s election as President
of the United States official. There is no doubt on the basis of either the
facts of the election or of electoral law that Biden won the election. He won
it fairly and legally. President Trump and his minions have filed numerous
lawsuits alleging massive voter fraud in the election. There isn’t a shred of
evidence that there was any such fraud, and Trump and his forces have lost in
federal court again and again precisely because although they screamed voter
fraud they could produce no evidence of such fraud at all.
On Tuesday,
December 8, 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit on behalf
of the State of Texas in the United States Supreme Court against the states of
Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, all of which Biden won,
claiming massive voter fraud and failure by state officials to follow their own
state law in the 2020 election.[1]
The suit sought to have the election results in those states thrown out and
either to have the legislatures of those states choose the state’s electors or
to have the US House of Representatives decide the election under the 12th
Amendment to the Constitution. In either case Trump would probably win.
President Trump and seventeen states led by Republicans sought to join the suit
as plaintiffs. On December 11, 2020, the US Supreme Court formally declined to
take the case. As expected by nearly everyone familiar with the applicable law,
the Court found that Texas did not have standing to bring the suit. In an
unsigned order the Court said that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its
elections.”
As a general rule
of American jurisprudence any person or entity having legal standing may file
whatever lawsuit they want in any court they want. The mere filing of a lawsuit
establishes nothing. If a lawsuit is improperly filed for any reason the court
in which it was filed will simply dismiss it upon motion by the opposing party,
thereby putting and end to the matter. There are rules of court procedure and
standards of attorney ethics that limit the type of case that may properly
be filed and for which an attorney may sign the pleadings. That the lawsuit
that the state of Texas filed against four other states was totally unmerited
on the basis of both the law and the facts of the matter was obvious from the
very beginning to anyone marginally informed about the facts and the law of the
case. The case was frivolous and even blatantly dishonest, something no one can
really deny. So the Supreme Court, which has more discretion than most other
courts over what cases it will hear, refused to hear the case.
Yet the obvious
intent behind Texas’ lawsuit makes it worse than frivolous and dishonest. It
may constitute sedition, but there is a threshold question we must consider. It
was wildly improper for Texas to file the suit it filed because that suit had
no merit whatsoever in law or fact, but filing it was not illegal. Improper
yes, illegal no. So the question arises of whether an improper but legal act
can constitute sedition. I am not at all familiar with the law on that subject.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find courts saying that a legal action no matter how
improper cannot constitute sedition. Yet this case was so frivolous and was so
obviously filed with an anti-democratic intent that even if what Texas did
doesn’t constitute sedition legally it certainly constitutes it morally. This
suit was a blatant attempt to circumvent and thereby undermine our country’s
constitutional democracy. It was an attempt to disenfranchise tens of millions
of legal voters and to have the Supreme Court impose on this country an
electoral result other than the one the country’s constitutional and statutory
electoral provisions produced. It was an attempt disguised as a legitimate
lawsuit to supplant American democracy and replace it with a judicially imposed
undemocratic process and result.
No lawsuit ever
filed in this country before may have reeked of sedition as much as this one
did. It was so obviously baseless in law and fact that it could only have had a
purpose and intent other than to produce a legitimate court decision based on
the law and the facts of the case. It’s purpose and intent had to be political
not legal. This lawsuit was patently an attempt to impose an unlawful,
undemocratic result on the American people. It was an attempt to make a person
president by means other than those specified in the United States
Constitution. What we have here is nothing less than an attempt to circumvent
and undermine the US Constitution. If that isn’t sedition in a legal sense
because the act of filing the suit was not illegal, it certainly is sedition in
a moral sense. That numerous other states and elected representatives sought to
join it is a moral and political outrage that just makes the whole matter
worse. Those who filed it and those who sought to join it do not deserve to
serve in any public capacity in this country. That they won’t be thrown out of
office by their Republican constituents just makes this sorry incident all the
sadder.
[1]
The Supreme Court normally hears appeals and is not a court of original
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed. The Supreme Court does however have
original jurisdiction in lawsuits between states.
No comments:
Post a Comment