A Dark Day in America’s History
By: Lisa Paisley-Cleveland
Tags: Supreme Court, Undermine, Sedition, Oath Of Office, Presidential Election

Photo by Zurem Meru on Unsplash

It’s difficult to convey the gravity of the actions that took place on Thursday, December 10, 2020, when 126 elected Republican Congressmen, plus other elected state officials, added their names to an Amicus Curiae Brief, seeking to overturn the results of a legitimately decided U.S. Presidential election. Although on Friday, December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court justices, three appointed by Trump, rejected the Texas lawsuit case with no dissents, the stench of what happened remains.

l It might be useful to take some time to review the text of the lawsuit and those who attached their names to what many respected commentators, scholars, reporters, and other elected officials are calling a seditious act. To be clear, the act of sedition is described in the language of the Espionage Act of 1917. U.S. federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entered into World War 1. It has been amended numerous times over the years. The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses). You decide:

According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them.

To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or

To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

The legal challenges involving election fraud and irregularities were heard and should have been heard. They were rejected, and on Friday by the highest court. No matter your political perspective, we all have looked to the highest court of the land, including President Trump, to settle wicked matters facing this country. Not all of its decisions sit well with millions on the other side of an issue, nevertheless, its authority is respected. Make no mistake, to reject this case speaks volumes as to whether the justices considered the lawsuit as having merit. We should ask ourselves, why would the highest court in America, with the majority of conservative appointed justices, reject the case if it had merit? Are they too part of the grand scheme to “steal the election?”

Thursday was an especially dark day during a period of so many. I, and millions of Americans, wondered how we arrived at this point in our history, where elected officials would attach their names to a document and an effort to overturn a legitimately decided election. The seriousness of this act requires that I repeat this over, and over again.

We came perilously close to the destruction of our grand democracy, which is why many would argue that this threat cannot go unanswered. It is true that the election results (306 electoral votes vs. 232, and over 7 million more than the opponent) and the responses by our legal institutions, provided a buttress to the threat of our democracy, this time. However, a terrible affront to our nation took place by the very officials who swore an oath to defend the United States and the constitution.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me, God.

How ironic is it that those 126 congressmen acted as domestic enemies against the Constitution of the United States by being active participants in an attempt to subvert it? The next time our weakened institutions may not hold up.

We did not wake up one morning to find ourselves at this point in our history. We have been inching toward a disaster zone for some time now. We have relied heavily on a system of goodwill, decency, and traditions that have been bent, stretched, and broken. We now know that a host of government activities require that laws be attached to explicitly guide behavior. To this end, we must engage in courageous discussions resulting in specific outcomes.

In relation to the elected officials who signed their names to the Amicus Curiae Brief, although many would argue that we must now be laser-focused on the monumental problems facing our country, absolutely true, but we cannot dismiss or ignore the consequential decision made by elected representatives to overturn a legitimate election, with no fraud or major irregularities found. In order to protect our democracy from such future threats, is it not necessary to hold appropriate hearings to determine the legal consequences, if any, or decide on appropriate punishment? What are the consequences if we do nothing?

Thursday, December 10, 2020, was a dark and pivotal day in our nation’s history. It served as a warning.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/read-house-republicans-texas-supremecourt/index.html

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm