Header Graphic for Sarges.com Go to Home Page of Your Historical News Source LeftNavBar_Background_Color_Bar Visit News Columns written by Bill Sargent Check out Sarge's FaceBook page Visit Sarge's Twitter Page Send a message to Sarge via a Webform Visit Sarge's 2018 campaign Website Visit the Department of Justice - FBI Archived pages Visit the archived National Security Web pages Visit the archived Foreign Policy Pages Visit the archived immigration reform pages Visit the archived pages about the Economy Visit the archived 2nd Amendment web pages Visit archived political stories Authorization to copy items from this website You are here > Home > News Columns > What will those in Power Try Next?


The Executive Branch Must Act Within Its Authority

Voters Should Decide who will lead us, not the courts

What will those in Power
Try Next?

"Yes, Abigail, Voter Fraud Still Exists"

Published in The Post Newspaper
January 27, 2024

The framers of the constitution wisely divided governmental powers between three branches; the executive, legislative and the judiciary, each with its own purpose and authority. The Constitution formally granted the judiciary only the power to try cases. In Marberry vs. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall added the controversial practice of judicial review allowing unelected judges to impose their power without accountability.  The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) has played critical roles with this power, when it chose to do so.  For example, the Gore vs. Bush case upheld the rule of law forcing Florida to follow its own Democratic enacted election laws, a true victory for the rule of law. Yet, at other times the Court’s action or indifference has caused damage to critical freedoms such as in the Dred Scott Case, where Chief Justice Taney found that human protections depended upon the color of one’s skin.

In a more recent case Texas sued several states who violated their own election laws without legislative authority so to do. SCOTUS refused to accept the case claiming Texas didn’t have standing.  The result allowed election practices that were highly susceptible to fraud and misuse such as the use of unrestricted mail-in-ballots without proper security safeguards.  Reportedly as many as 10 million mail-in ballots were fraudulently voted and counted nationwide. Texas sought damages claiming it suffered incalculable financial damages with the election of those promoting open borders and providing ample evidence that the election lacked integrity. One nationally recognized poll found 1 out of 5 mail-in-ballots were fraudulent. Another found that 17% of those voting for the Biden administration wouldn’t have, if the media and the FBI had been honest about the validity Hunter Biden’s laptop.  SCOTUS’ desire to stay out of the political fray, left the nation in great turmoil

Our nation now finds itself with a small number of elites seeking to use every strategy possible -- including court packing and prohibiting Donald Trump from appearing on primary election ballots – in order to stop him from being reelected.  They depict Trump as an insurrectionist – a violation for which he has neither been indicted nor tried. SCOTUS has wisely accepted to hear lawsuits over efforts to ban Trump from ballots. Johathan Turley, a Constitutional expert, recently opined; since the January 6th events weren’t an insurrection -- labeling it a lawful protest from which a small number rioted -- Trump can’t be charged. Trump had nothing to do with the riot and in fact pleaded otherwise. 

Also, case law and a SCOTUS ruling from the time the 14th Amendment was enacted shows a concern over zealous prosecutors who were attempting to disqualify Southern Democrats from serving.   Congress was forced to passed a statute which required that section 3 could only be used if a Federal Case was brought by a Federal Prosecutor using a Federal Grand Jury convicting the defendant of insurrection by a unanimous verdict using a standard of beyond reasonable doubt and fully affirmed on appeal.  Since none of these requirements have been met, SCOTUS should find the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to Donald Trump. 

First there was the Russia hoax, then two impeachment attempts, and now attempts to keep Trump off the ballot.  Here’s something to ponder; perhaps, just perhaps, those who are threatened by Trump and his America First policies feel they cannot win at the ballot box and so they’ll try anything to stop him.

About the Authors and Columnists
Bill Sargent and Mark Mansius


Bill Sargent and Mark Mansius have written over 250 guest columns over the last ten years and continue to do so.
Bill lives in Galveston, Texas and Mark in St. Georges, Utah.
Both ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary
for Texas Congressional District 14, since then
they have become close friends and colleagues.