Constitutional Law Scholar Explains Standing & Why Texas Election Lawsuit Was Anti-Constitutional
Constitutional Law Scholar Explains Standing & Why Texas Election Lawsuit Was Anti-Constitutional

Constitutional Law Scholar Explains Standing & Why Texas Election Lawsuit Was Anti-Constitutional

Views: 60
Read Time:2 Minute

Categorical Imperatives – Episode # 28
“Legal standing, Texas v Pennsylvania addendum & why people who believe themselves to be the one true defender of Constitutional government have begun to be more destructive of Constitutionalism then the very people they believe they are protecting it from.”

After my last episode breaking down the Texas election lawsuit and why SCOTUS made the right call Constitutionally, it became clear from the responses I got that I should have spent some time explaining what Standing is. So I made a whole video about it. This video is also something of an appeal to Trump supporters out there. This is partly a response to many misconceptions widely held by Trump supporters still about this election and especially their reaction to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Texas Election Lawsuit. It is also meant to be an olive branch as well. I don’t mean to attack anyone. I am making a direct appeal as a Constitutional Conservative to others who consider themselves Constitutional Conservatives.

These responses ran the gamut from people asking what standing mean ? And how does it work? How does it relate to citizens and government? To people under the impression standing is not actually a legal doctrine. People who didn’t understand the difference between a State and a citizen (seriously), people who mistakenly believed the Supreme Court was the right venue to handle election suits are meant to be decided in the Supreme Court, People who didn’t understand that the reason the Supreme Court didn’t take the case had to do with limiting our ability to seek redress of grievances (rather than a limit on the Court’s ability to hear the case), and people who thought that even if Texas didn’t have standing the Supreme Court should have taken the case anyway, and ruled on the merits. Which would be a vast and unprecedented expansion of Federal power. And a violation of some of our Country’s most important principles. Separation or Powers, Federalism, rule of law & limited government itself must be cast aside for them to get the outcome they want. These are values that I hope fellow Constitutional conservatives still actually value and still want to protect.
.

Amicus brief – https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163237/20201209155924009_2020-12-9TexasScotusAmiciBrief-FINAL.pdf

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events, law, politics & culture.

Categorical Imperatives On Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives

Categorical Imperatives on LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives

Lockean Liberal On Parler – https://parler.com/profile/Lockeanliberal

Leave a Reply

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

Verified by MonsterInsights