The Colorado Ballot Nonsense (and why the Supreme Court should ignore it)

 

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

 

{ed. Note – please read the entire post before sending e-mails that we have lost our collective minds}

 

The Madison Conservative has repeatedly used its bully pulpit to expound on the reality that the United States Constitution -  the most wondrous document ever conceived on the right of people to be free – in no way, shape, manner or form accepts the concept of political parties having any legitimate function with respect to government. America was NOT created or designed as a two-party nation.

This simple fact is the foundation of our belief that the United States Supreme Court should not take up debate on the farce that is the case of Colorado keeping Donald Trump off its states primary ballot. The Justices should take all the filings and toss them in the dumpster.

And then go watch a Cubs game.

 

Now, before we are inundated with correspondence screeching that we are destroying democracy by suggesting such heresy, read on.

 

We say nonsense. In fact, our stance strengthens democracy 10-fold, in stark contrast to the anarchists of the political class and their stenographic cohorts in the media.

 

Consider these points:

 

When Colorado removed Trump from the ballot, what is lost in the argument  is that it was a PRIMARY ballot. The primaries are the function of PRIVATE ENTITIES. They have NO government standing, according to the founders and framers of the Constitution. The Supreme Court should have no interest.

 

·      The Colorado state Republican Party responded to the ballot action by stating if Trump was not restored to the ballot, the would move to a caucus process to choose their candidate. Outstanding idea. Keep the taxpayer out of it and let the private entity pay their own expenses. The caucus system worked fine for Iowa, and they were able to declare a winner in about 30 minutes. Rather impressive for a state-wide election.

·      The process for national offices is contained in the Constitution. States cannot supersede it because they hate Trump. If any state tried to remove Trump from a national ballot, at that point the Supreme Court would have a reason to intercede, and would restore his name.

·      The Madison Conservative is always heartened when the Constitution comes to the forefront of public debate. Sadly, we are convinced that many on the political left, including President Biden, have never actually read the document. The evidence for that belief is the idiocy and ignorance of those claiming Trump is ineligible because he participated in the January 6^th riots, stating categorically that the event was an “insurrection.” Remember that NO ONE, let alone Trump, has EVER been charged or convicted of that crime. As an aside, an insurrection by definition requires that the insurrectionist must be armed. NOBODY has been charged with weapons possession. The only person killed on January 6^th was an unarmed participant who was shot by a Capitol police offer. So the 14^th Amendment gambit is at best a whopper of a canard.

So the political class and media across all ideologies are completely wrong on every issue related to both the primaries and Trumps eligibility. In an effort to create the daily soap opera script that is news these days, all media outlets present their legal experts expressing that the Supreme Courts Colorado decision will decide the fate of democracy for the next millenia.

 

The Supreme Court, and the American electorate, should not allow this nonsense to continue. Political parties and their primary process should be relegated to the scrap heap of history. They have no purpose and only exist to keep the inept in power and to generate cashflow for media companies.

It is our sincere hope that the Supreme Court tells the children of politics to get off Americas grass and play somewhere else.

 

 

Forty Percent

 

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

 

 

{editors note: In discussions on how to approach this topic, two quotes kept entering the debate. We decided to utilize both, despite some question as to their origins.

To wit:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. – credited to Thomas Jefferson

 

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

Credited to Star Trek: The Next Generation}

 

 

Tyranny is at the door and it seems that the electorate appears to be, at best, either ambivalent or oblivious to that reality. The founders and framers constructed the United States Constitution specifically to protect the individual. It was designed to limit the power of government. The rights of freedom for America’s citizenry are beautifully enshrined within the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

 

The political left is intent on dismantling those rights because of a specific hatred.

 

We would ask you to consider what happens when the following constitutional rights are ignored for any single American citizen.

 

To wit:

 

An American citizen is told that they may not speak about their court proceedings, but if they do, severe sanctions will be imposed for simply speaking.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Is it acceptable to be threatened with imprisonment for speaking your truth? The freedom of speech is meant not to protect speech you accept, but for that which you hate loathe and despise.

The same American is in dispute with the government over ownership of papers. Rather than allow the legal process to follow its just course, the government launches a raid to seize the documents. They even search underwear drawers, a site that would not be listed in a warrant, as mandated by the Constitution. Remember the Constitution limits the actions of the government. It might be difficult and cumbersome to legally delineate specifics in a warrant, but therein is the point.

 

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

As the American citizen is prosecuted by the state, and while a civil and not criminal case, he is not afforded the right to examine the witnesses against him. Oddly, the only witness against him is the states prosecutor, who ran for office specifically to put the one citizen in jail. Not on a platform of protecting the people, but to railroad this singular person. The case brought against this citizen has no victims. All associated parties have all been made whole in the normal course of business. The state, however, wants this one citizen crushed. So the prosecution and persecution continues unabated.

  

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

The State, having secured a guilty verdict, a decision THEY KNOW WILL BE OVERTURNED, nevertheless continues with imposing a penalty. The populace is aware that OJ Simpson who was found liable for butchering two human beings was ordered to pay thirty million dollars. There was no victim, and no crime in the case of the Citizen. Somehow a single judge was allowed to impose a penalty in excess of ten-fold to the OJ penalty. In addition, the citizen has 30 days to post that amount in order to appeal, and the prosecutor has gleefully announced the State will seize assets to satisfy the judgement.

 

Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

We are confident that our readers are fully aware the citizen of this narrative is Donald Trump.

This post however is not a defense of Trump. It IS a warning to the American people to take heed of the quotes that led this column. The Constitution was written to prevent the government from doing exactly what they are attempting to do to Trump.

Love him or hate him, he is correct when he states that if they can do it to him, they will certainly do it to all of us.

We implore you to let your voice be heard in defense of the Constitution, or surely those quotes will become self fulfilling prophecies.

Unless you are comfortable surrendering 40 percent of your constitutional rights.

 

Willful Retention

 

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

 

 

 The special counsel investigating Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents released his final report last week. Immediately, the  political and punditry class, in conjunction with a sycophantic and stenographic media began a coordinated obfuscation of what the report said.

 

The Madison Conservative will distill the report down to its essential point and in doing so bring clarity to the issue.

 

We will wait until a later date to discuss the comparisons to former President Trump’s classified documents case until such time as it is properly adjudicated.

 

The core of the Biden case comes down to two words:

 

“Willful retention”

 

The special counsel found that Biden had KNOWINGLY  broken federal law going back to his days in the United States Senate. He had illegally taken documents out of a ‘skiff’. A skiff is a location that forbids any type of electronic devices and any type of recording instrument. Nothing comes out of a skiff. As a senator and then vice-president, Biden was fully aware of skiff protocols.

Biden and his defenders attempted to place blame at the feet of “staff”. Staff were never in the skiff. We do not know if his staff even had sufficient security clearances to handle the top secret classified documents stored in his garage. Joe broke federal law all on his own, with full knowledge of his crime.

 

The political left has attempted to paint the special counsel as a partisan hack intent on embarrassing the President. Their argument states that the only reason a prosecutor would make note of Biden’s failing memory would be to cause political damage to his hopes for re-election.

As to why a prosecutor would say such things, those decrying the  comments, they might have had a point. In unison, the buzz word is that questioning Biden’s  mental capacities was “gratuitous”. Biden himself expressed outrage at many of the comments about his forgetting the date of his son’s death. He then promptly forgot the church where his son received the rosary Biden carries. He then confused Egypt as Mexico.

There is  sadly a growing list of Biden losing cognitive function, but such examples would not support a decision by the special counsel to opt out of bringing charges against the President.

The people raising their voices to declare that Biden has been vindicated have not read the report and are wildly ignorant of the law.

 

To wit:

The evidence against Biden was deep and  damning. He was NOT found innocent. The reason the special counsel did not bring charges was that he felt a jury would not convict “an old man with a poor memory”. That belief was based upon two days of interviews spanning five hours. Biden demonstrated such poor memory he might not remember actions he had taken. Those findings are what seem to drive the political left and the media to distraction.

 

We do not understand why.

By federal statute, if a special counsel chooses not to prosecute, he MUST explain why, in his report to the Attorney General.

 

Consider that the President of the United States was found not mentally competent to stand trial, but can fulfill the requirements of his office?

 

If the Biden administration wishes to refute the findings, their course is simple and clear.

Release the recordings from the president’s interviews. Bill Clinton did.

 

The American people are waiting.