RSS Feed

Free Speech and the 2020 Election


December 13, 2020 by Tom Roberts, Esq.

Disturbing Trend To Silence Lawful Speech

The New Left frequent and continuing attempts to silence speech is disturbing. This trend is rampant in Universities, on the streets, but is now in Congress.

Irrespective of the outcome of the Constitutional and legal principles raised in the Texas Election petition to United State Supreme Court, to suggest that filing such a suit is “insurrection or rebellion” is a disturbing trend to silence orderly speech. (The suit was rejected based upon lack of standing – see below).

There was a time when conservatives, liberals and defenders of freedom all rallied behind freedom’s center piece – the right to free speech.  All adopted Beatrice Hall’s quote in The Friends of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Beatrice Hall –  The Friends of Voltaire

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) recently urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat any of the 126 Republican House members who signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 presidential election voting changes that loosened the security of the votes.  He cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution – which states that no person shall be a Representative in Congress  who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a member of the “squad” has supported this censorship. 

The United States has been a light on a hill, but now we are sliding down that hill soon to be nothing more than a banana republic.  There is a reason that immigrants are seeking refuge in the United States — it is not to see the policies and practices of 3rd world countries becoming the norm here.   Filing a lawsuit is not insurrection or rebellion!

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.)

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

United States Constitution, Amendment IV, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Filing a lawsuit is not insurrection or rebellion!

The Texas litigation before the United States Supreme Court involves complex and interesting issues of Constitutional and Legal Principles, including “original jurisdiction” and “standing” (“Controversies between two or more States.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, and Congress has placed the jurisdiction for such suits exclusively with the Supreme Court: “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)).  With two justices dissenting, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the suit based upon a lack of standing by Texas to show that it had a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (excerpt)

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The courts are the appropriate forum to address the contentious issues of the 2020 Election in a once civilized nation.

On 12/11/2020 – the Supreme Court denied the motion of Texas stating:


12-11-2020-Order of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

Tom Roberts, Esq.
Freedom Works Foundation
105 S 1st Street
Richmond, VA 23219


Sorry, comments are closed.

Search Site

This website provides hundreds of articles and commentaries related to the law for informational purposes. It is not intended as "legal advice" to you.

Recent Blogs


Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC