The following is a communication from our attorney, Mark Small:
I represent the Petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court in which we seek a re-vote of the 2016 elections. I have colleagues who believed I was silly for taking the case. Then I explained the basis for it.
The Constitution is not a holy writ delivered to intellectual purists. The Constitution is a document of ironies. The 1787 Convention originally was supposed to make improvements to the Articles of Confederation. The Convention went far outside the scope of its charter. The Constitution provided the framework for a new government. Of the 55 people who attended, at one time or another, as delegates, all were white males who owned land. They compromised to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, the effects of which we still feel, while simultaneously advocating liberty.
Despite the many contradictory forces at play in Philadelphia that summer, the Framers were concerned about tyranny and the possibilities of foreign powers taking control of the country. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution is meant to guarantee that we are protected from invasion. The concept of a computer would have been difficult to explain to people like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The concept of “invasion,” however, was well understood.
We have asked the Supreme Court to appoint a Special Master to investigate the allegations in the writ of mandamus filed with the Court. Madison, in Federalist 43 wrote that only the judicial branch is in a position to make determinations of controversy under Article IV, Section 4. His comments were aimed more at the “guarantee” our form of government would be a republic, but they apply as well to the guarantee from foreign invasion, particularly when, as now, the Executive and the Legislative branches appear compromised.
The principles upon which our request relies are old and consistent with the vision of the Framers who, despite their differences were united against the concept of foreign takeover of this country.
I want to thank you [all] for the support and encouragement you have given . . . . Any case taken to the United States Supreme Court can be viewed as a “long shot.” In 1974, the Court was stalwart against what the Justices saw as inroads toward autocracy. My hope is they will be a brake against the forces that have tried to move us in a similar direction. I have to say, however, that the crises of Watergate begin to pale against what our country faces today.
Again, thank you for your all you have done.