It is one thing to say the President is entitled to exhaust his legal challenges before conceding. It’s quite another to say he’s entitled to reverse the normal burden of proof in the exercise of those challenges. Many believe that if this President cries foul, his claims must be accepted until disproved. A dangerous misstatement of the law, if ever there was one, which plays into the hands of those who have no respect for rules, laws, or the rule of law itself.

It’s important to be clear on this. Those defending against the President’s allegations don’t have to disprove anything. It is the President who must prove the fraud he alleges. To date, all the President’s suits have been summarily dismissed.

Now, let’s be clear about something else. The current controversy over the election results is not fuelled by the normal quarrels between Republicans and Democrats. It is not the result of real, remnant, or vestigial differences between the North and the South. And it is not attributable to the urban and rural divide.

In his Civil Rights Address, President Kennedy said “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.” The American Constitution lays the groundwork for a moral republic. How many immoral politicians will it take to overthrow it?

Me.Howard Greenfield

Montreal

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.