Home » Values » US Supreme Court Comes Alive to Support America!

US Supreme Court Comes Alive to Support America!


Look at recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and those under consideration can revitalize efforts to support America. However, many citizens understand the purpose and limitations of the Court because there is far too much hope placed on impossible cases with no chance of being heard.

To get you off to a good start, I eliminate all the U.S. Supreme Court hearing applications concerning elections. Why? The language of “plenary” (absolute) power is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which is the word and thought of our founding fathers to stay out of the election business of state legislatures.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of applications for hearings every year, so you know they will be particular. And so, I’ll comment on the crucial cases likely to be heard and tell you why some cases in the news most likely won’t.

Important U.S. Supreme Court Cases waiting for hearing approval

Roe versus Wade is the U.S. Supreme Court’s opening shot against the Marxist takeover.

This decision did NOT outlaw abortions but instead said the federal courts had no constitutional jurisdiction over cases involving abortions. in the first place! Because the feds have no constitutional jurisdiction over abortion matters. So the U.S. Supreme Court pushed the abortion issue back to the states where they could make their abortion laws.

This decision is a win for those who believe in following the U.S. Constitution. And, a loss for the communists who think it’s only a guide.

For more details on the Roe vs. Wade case, visit Business Insider.

Communist Democrats weaponize the decision for political gain.

Before the 2022 midterm election, the strangest coincidence happened. There was an unprecedented leak within the Court!

It foretold the coming decision to abandon the previous Roe vs. Wade decision, which was quickly turned into a political weapon against Republicans by riding the emotions of those who were unable to understand its true purpose.

It happened right after an extreme leftist judge took a bench! A coincidence?

West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mike Davis on the WarRoom explains the importance of West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And has far-reaching consequences that may save America.

West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision is easy to overlook. But, look more profound, and you see the court taking power away from oppressive federal agencies, making Congress do its job as lawmakers.

The result is a smaller government, regardless of the Court’s intention.

It ruled that the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) did not have the power to determine caps on permissible pollution levels. Instead, determining levels is part of the congressional law-making business.

The Court decision was a victory for those wanting a smaller, less intrusive government.

Moore v Harper will decide whether state legislatures manage their elections.

Mike Davis is an ex-worker of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Here he explains the deep hole the communist are in with constitutional laws about the power of state legislatures.

This is the case about reversing a North Carolina State Supreme Court that reversed a state legislature’s gerrymandered districting map and wrote its own. Republicans say the Court had no right to do so!

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case in October 2022; it’s now being heard. Seemingly, the score is three judges voting for both sides, with three more classified as hard to read.

But this case is about so much more! Suppose the Court re-affirms that state legislatures run their elections rather than Governors and Secretaries of State. In that case, MAGA-led Republican state legislatures could outlaw voting machines and mail-in voting!

And there is nothing more important than that in American politics!

What does the U.S. Constitution say?

The U.S. Constitution says that state legislatures have the power to manage elections. Courts can only declare a gerrymandered map unconstitutional. Moreover, the U.S. Congress can pass sweeping election laws, but they must be universal and apply to all states.

Interestingly, our founding fathers gave the ultimate “plenary” power to the state legislature to send the electors of their choice in case of a corrupt election. The point is that they had more confidence in them than any other because they were elected and closest to the people. The U.S. Supreme Court must consider this.

Should the “Secretary of State” position even exist in a State?

Corrupt politicians invented the Secretary of State position in States to control elections and get around the constitutional election power of state legislators. Besides, isn’t a Secretary of State on the federal level in charge of foreign matters in the State Department? So why do states have a Secretary of State in charge of elections?

State Supreme Courts

State supreme courts cannot re-draw gerrymandered districts; they only rule if they are constitutional. Opening up this power would open up a nation ruled by courts, so the map the court drew should be ruled illegal.

What else is this case about?

This case is about who has the power to manage federal elections. After the COVID experience, many illegal election rules were enacted, and now the globalists want them enshrined as precedents.

On the other hand, MAGA wants them declared illegal. That is, until or if the state legislatures make them the law, for example, mail-in voting or remote ballot boxes.

As you can see, the results of this case can change elections and the country.

What does the U.S. Constitution say about federal elections?

In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body or person in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power. The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, where not otherwise entitled. Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general.

Plenary power – Wikipedia

The U.S. Constitution says that the state legislatures manage their federal election, but under the Congressional “Election Clause,” Congress can intervene. That is except in the case of suspected fraudulent elections where the state legislatures have “plenary” or absolute discretion.


The elections clause, Art. I, Sec. 4, states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature,” although Congress retains the authority to “alter such Regulations.”

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Art. 1, Section 4

You can already see that the U.S. Constitution is clear; state legislatures can approve any gerrymandered redistricting they want. However, the Democratic party congress could pass a law granting power to state supreme courts. That is for federal elections only.

Presidential electors

Our founding fathers included the word “plenary,” or absolute power, to prevent a corrupt U.S. Congress from stealing an election. This specific and higher-ranking power flies in the face of Congress’s ability to pass laws to protect federal elections.

In other words, while true that Congress has the final say over federal elections according to the “Election Clause.” It cannot take away state legislatures’ “plenary” power to send presidential electors of their choosing when election fraud is suspected.

The possible repercussions of the ruling are enormous!

A favorable ruling will re-confirm the absolute power of state legislatures to manage their elections and electors. In other words, Governors, Secretaries of State, state courts, etc., could not dictate election laws, only the state legislatures.

The Democratic party is desperate for their bought and paid elected officials to retain their ill-gotten election powers. This decision will have implications beyond the fight between the North Carolina Supreme Court and the state legislature.

Also, a ruling in favor of the Republican plaintiffs in North Carolina would mean state legislatures could quickly eliminate voting machines and mail-in voting.

Here is the complete history of the case on the SCOTUS’ Blog.

The Brunson v. Alma case seeks to nullify the 2020 election.

Even though the Court listed it, the famous Brunson v. Alma case will NOT be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court because it cannot remove lawmakers en mass for a wrong legislature decision, which was NOT to investigate the 2020 election. Besides, the Court can’t remedy this.

The Court does not have the right to interfere in elections, as this is the job of decentralized state legislatures. Our founding fathers were extremely clear about this when they gave them the “plenary” power to send the electors of their choosing overriding suspected fraudulent elections.

I’ve heard the Brunson brothers have other tricks up their sleeves, but I’m pessimistic as the Court doesn’t like election tricks.

SCOTUS Blocks the expiration of Title 42

Chief Justice Roberts stood up for us by blocking the expiration of Title 42, which gives the Border Patrol the right to expel asylum seekers for matters of public health safety, meaning COVID. It’s claimed that the out-of-control immigration at our Southern border will worsen if Title 42 is allowed to expire.

Currently, it’s the only legal tool available to expel illegal immigrants. Already, one Justice is saying the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of law and doesn’t make policy. But, in the face of America’s destruction, what will the Court do?

I guess the order is temporarily conditioned on Biden visiting the border, which he recently did. If you wondered why Biden visited the Southern border for the first time in 50 years? Now you know why?

This case was accepted because the protection of borders is a federal matter. The court will make a permanent decision in the case in February 2023. I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Title 42 to expire in February 2023 because the Court will have no choice. After all, it does NOT make policy.