Blog

Fraud Check: What the Trump Legal Filings Say about the 2020 Election Procedures


Below please find an outline summary plus a link to full-text filings concerning the Trump campaign’s legal challenges to the vote tallies in several states.

Trump v. Boockvar et al. (PA Election Officials), complaint filed in U.S. District Court, November 9, 2020

  • COUNT I: Fourteenth Amendments U.S. Const. Art. I § 4, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cl. 2; Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Due Process On The Right to Vote Invalid Enactment of Regulations Affecting Observation and Monitoring of the Election
  • COUNT II: Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Equal Protection Invalid Enactment of Regulations Affecting Observation and Monitoring of the Election
  • COUNT III: U.S. Const. Art. I, §4, cl. 1 & Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses
  • COUNT IV: Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Equal Protection Disparate Treatment of Absentee/Mail-In Voters Among Different Counties
  • COUNT V: U.S. Const. Art. I, §4, & Art. II, § 1 Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses
  • COUNT VI: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Denial of Due Process Disparate Treatment of Absentee/Mail-In Voters Among Different Counties
  • COUNT VII: U.S. Const. Art. I, §4, & Art. II, § 1 Violation of the Electors & Elections Clauses

Trump v. Benson et al. (MI Election Officials), complaint filed in U.S. District Court, November 11, 2020

  • COUNT I: Secretary of State Benson and Wayne County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and the corollary clause of Michigan’s Constitution.
  • COUNT II: Secretary of State Bensonand Wayne County violated the rights of these Michigan voters under the federal Elections and Electors Clauses.
  • COUNT III: Secretary of State Benson and Wayne County violated Michigan’s Election Code.

(Additional sources are forthcoming.)

 

Dr. Ryan C. MacPherson is the founding president of Into Your Hands LLC and the author of several books, including Rediscovering the American Republic (2 vols.) and Debating Evolution before Darwinism. He lives with his wife Marie and their homeschooled children in Mankato, Minnesota, where he teaches American history, history of science, and bioethics at Bethany Lutheran College. He also serves as President of the Hausvater Project, which mentors Christian parents. For more information, visit www.ryancmacpherson.com.

Print

Trump vs. Biden: Looking Ahead to the December 14, 2020 Presidential Election


For nearly 20 years, I have taught U.S. history to college students. I call out out, “Who elects the president?” and they learn to respond in unison, “the electoral college!” At least that’s usually the correct answer.

Trump v Biden Dec 14 2020However, In 1800, 1824, and 1876 (stretching into 1877), the U.S. House of Representatives elected the president, since no candidate received more than half of the certified electoral votes. In 2000, the electoral college still chose the president, but with a unique twist: the U.S. Supreme Court determined which group of persons would be the official electors from Florida: those pledged to vote for Bush, rather than those pledged to vote for Gore. That was the resolution to concerns about miscounts, fraud, and the like, that precipitated lawsuits at both the state and federal level.

In 2020, we are headed down a similar path once again—similar, but not identical.

November 3 was election day. People voted both by mail and in person beforehand. Ballots continued to arrive afterwards. Along the way, the tallies of votes in about five key swing states vacillated between the candidates. The Trump campaign filed lawsuits and demanded recounts. On November 7, several news bureaus called the election in favor of Biden—at times naming him the “president-elect” and the “46th president,” but at times also including qualifiers such as “projected.” That evening, Biden delivered a celebratory speech, as did his running mate, the projected vice president-elect Kamala Harris. Several world leaders congratulated Biden-Harris. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign announced the intention to file lawsuits, beginning on Monday.

So, is the matter final, or not?

The answer to that question depends very much on the answer to the question I have asked my students over the years: “Who elects the president?”

If you believe that the news bureaus determine the answer, then it’s settled: Biden has won.

If you believe that the consensus of prominent world leaders determines the answer, then it’s settled: Biden has won.

If you believe that the popular vote determines the answer, then it’s settled: Biden has won by a margin of about four million votes.

But knowledge and belief are different.

My dear friend Plato and many other philosophers after him have defined knowledge as “true belief together with a reason why.”

So, do you know that Biden has won? In other words, is your belief about his victory a true belief, and can you state the reason why it must be true?

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

English-Metric Conversion: 6 COVID-feet = 1 COVID-meter


I long have been under the impression that one meter is about three feet, and hence six feet equals about two meters.

Regulatory responses to COVID-19 have changed many things about our lives.

Unit conversion is one such thing.

In the United States, where the English measurement system prevails, the standard unit for social distancing is six feet.

In Denmark, where the metric system is used, the standard social distance unit is one meter.

So, the COVID-19 conversion comes out like this:

1 meter = 6 feet

See for yourself, from this confirmation service photo, which the caption describes in terms of “én meters afstand” (one meter's distance apart) “og to meters, hvis der er sang” (or two meters, if there's singing):

danske kirke en metres afstand

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

Book Links for LAMBS Blankets Recipients


Congratulations and God’s blessings on your new little one! From one mother of many to another, we share many of the the same blessings on this journey, as well as some of the struggles. In case these resources that I developed can be a blessing to you, I want to share them! Follow these links to explore some encouragement with other mothers of many as we ask God to help us raise our little ones to His glory!

In Christ’s Love, Marie MacPherson

 

 

Teaching Children Chastity—Free Preview

Mothering Many

Mothering Many: Strategy-Saving Strategies From Moms of Four or More—

Free Preview

Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood

Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood: Seven Free Devotions

 

Search for our Mothering Many Facebook Group!

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Marie K. MacPherson, vice president of Into Your Hands LLC, lives in Mankato, Minnesota, with her husband Ryan and their children, whom she homeschools. She is a certified Classical Lutheran Educator (Consortium for Classical Lutheran Educators), author of Meditations on the Vocation of Motherhood (2018), and editor of Mothering Many: Sanity-Saving Strategies from Moms of Four or More (2016).

Print

Is Compulsory Vaccination a Patriotic Duty? Think Again...


nurse with syringe

A recent editorial by Dr. Michael Lederman of the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, entitled “Defeat COVID-19 by Requiring Vaccination for All: It’s Not Un-American, It’s Patriotic,” asserts:

  1. “To win the war against the novel coronavirus that has now killed over 158,000 people in this country, the only answer is compulsory vaccination—for all of us. And while the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty.”
  2. “Do not honor religious objections. The major religions do not officially oppose vaccinations.”
  3. “Vaccine refusers could lose tax credits or be denied non-essential government benefits.”
  4. “Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals, schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes, public and commercial transit companies—airlines, trains and buses—could exclude refusers.”
  5. “The only legal limitation on government or private action is that it not be discriminatory, and it’s hard to see how discrimination would occur if vaccinations were free and accessible to all.”

In reply:

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print

An Analysis of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): Compulsory Vaccination


Introduction

In response to a smallpox epidemic in the early 1900s, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted a law requiring all adults to be vaccinated against smallpox unless they had already been vaccinated within the past five years or else a physician determined that vaccination was medically counter-indicated for them. The penalty for refusal to comply was a $5 fine (or about $150 in 2020, adjusted for inflation).

Jacobson challenged this law in court, ultimately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).

Outline of the Court’s Ruling

Police power includes public health regulation: “The police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905).

Personal liberty is not absolute: “[T]he liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905).

Personal rights are limited to that which does not violate the liberties of others: “It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others.” 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905), qt. Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 84.

→ Click to Continue Reading →

Print