The 14th Amendment Ratified or Not?

[Liquid Reigns]

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, is a landmark provision that transformed the landscape of American civil rights. Enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was designed to extend citizenship and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved African Americans, addressing profound issues of race, equality, and justice. The amendment's key provisions, including the Citizenship Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause, fundamentally reshaped the legal framework of the nation by curbing state power and affirming the rights of individuals. While its guarantees of equal protection and due process are often invoked in defense of individual rights, the amendment was primarily directed at the states, restricting their ability to infringe on the rights and liberties of their citizens. By placing constraints on state governments, it ensured that the federal government had the authority to protect individuals from state actions that violated their constitutional rights, marking a pivotal moment in the Reconstruction era and American history.

Was it legally ratified or not, and what implications would it have if it was determined to be illegally ratified?

 

[Rebarcock.]

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, is a landmark provision that transformed the landscape of American civil rights. Enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was designed to extend citizenship and equal protection under the law to formerly enslaved African Americans, addressing profound issues of race, equality, and justice. The amendment's key provisions, including the Citizenship Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause, fundamentally reshaped the legal framework of the nation by curbing state power and affirming the rights of individuals. While its guarantees of equal protection and due process are often invoked in defense of individual rights, the amendment was primarily directed at the states, restricting their ability to infringe on the rights and liberties of their citizens. By placing constraints on state governments, it ensured that the federal government had the authority to protect individuals from state actions that violated their constitutional rights, marking a pivotal moment in the Reconstruction era and American history.

Was it legally ratified or not, and what implications would it have if it was determined to be illegally ratified?

This is a question for google
See that was fairly simple

 

[Liquid Reigns]

This is a question for google
See that was fairly simple
View attachment 222210

But their are those out there that claim it was illegally ratified, even though SCOTUS, Congress, and the States all agree that it was legally ratified.

 

[AmericanViking]

The one you should question is the 16th amendment. There are distortions that say it was never actually ratified. It was just “declared” ratified.

And repeal the 17th please

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The one you should question is the 16th amendment. There are distortions that say it was never actually ratified. It was just “declared” ratified.

And repeal the 17th please

Looking at the 16th (1909), which was legally ratified 4 years after passing Congress (1913), from which SCOTUS declared income tax as unconstitutional (1895 ruling in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.). Unfortunately Congress can do such things and override SCOTUS Opinion.

The 17th.... I agree, the States should have some say at the Federal level.

 

[Rebarcock.]

But their are those out there that claim it was illegally ratified, even though SCOTUS, Congress, and the States all agree that it was legally ratified.

Link something. I've heard thus about treaties and the income tax but not the 14th

 

[AmericanViking]

Looking at the 16th (1909), which was legally ratified 4 years after passing Congress (1913), from which SCOTUS declared income tax as unconstitutional (1895 ruling in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.). Unfortunately Congress can do such things and override SCOTUS Opinion.

The 17th.... I agree, the States should have some say at the Federal level.

Some historians went state to state. They say it was never legally ratified. It was declared ratified

 

[MalO]

I agree with this thesis that the 14th amendment is illegal because the southern states weren't allowed to vote on it.

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf

You cannot rationally explain that the confederate states be prevented from leaving the Union at gunpoint, but also deny them their right to vote on a constitutional amendment.

This is another case of corrupt power-hungry tyrants enforcing whatever they want and calling it the law, rather than upholding the rule of law in a just and righteous manner.

The same behavior continues to the modern day. Remember 4 years ago when the SCOTUS refused to hear the voter fraud case brought forth by the state of Texas? If the SCOTUS had heard that case then the election might have been decided differently.

But the SCOTUS refused to hear the case, the matter of voter fraud was swept under the rug, and we got an alzheimer's patient as president for 4 years.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I agree with this thesis that the 14th amendment is illegal because the southern states weren't allowed to vote on it.

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf

You cannot rationally explain that the confederate states be prevented from leaving the Union at gunpoint, but also deny them their right to vote on a constitutional amendment.

This is another case of corrupt power-hungry tyrants enforcing whatever they want and calling it the law, rather than upholding the rule of law in a just and righteous manner.

The same behavior continues to the modern day. Remember 4 years ago when the SCOTUS refused to hear the voter fraud case brought forth by the state of Texas? If the SCOTUS had heard that case then the election might have been decided differently.

But the SCOTUS refused to hear the case, the matter of voter fraud was swept under the rug, and we got an alzheimer's patient as president for 4 years.

It is claimed that Southern states were not allowed full participation in the ratification process, as many were under military rule during Reconstruction. This argument focuses on the tension between Reconstruction policies and the democratic rights of Southern states post-Civil War.

While this view exists, it hasn’t gained much traction in legal contexts, mainly because the amendment has been accepted as constitutional law for over 150 years and has been repeatedly upheld by courts. The context of Reconstruction was extraordinarily complex, with the federal government needing to ensure that states rejoining the Union after the Civil War would not reinstitute slavery or otherwise undermine newly freed citizens' rights. Requiring Southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment was part of that effort.

The article linked, (written by William J. Bryant) explores the legal and historical arguments against the ratification of the 14th Amendment. These arguments, while debated, are still considered fringe in terms of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has never given serious consideration to overturning the amendment.

If you're looking for more mainstream legal perspectives, I recommend checking out leading constitutional law textbooks.

As for the claim of Texas V. Pennsylvania, Texas didn't have standing. Texas doesn't have the right to challenge how other states conduct elections.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Some historians went state to state. They say it was never legally ratified. It was declared ratified

Some historians and tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified because several states allegedly made clerical errors in the ratification documents, such as typos or minor language changes. They claim that Secretary of State Knox improperly declared the amendment ratified despite these alleged irregularities.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified has been repeatedly rejected by courts. In United States v. Thomas (1986), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that such claims were frivolous, emphasizing that the ratification process had been certified and was legally valid. The court stated, “Even if the ratification of the 16th Amendment were invalid, that would not excuse a citizen from paying income taxes.”

Moreover, the argument that minor errors in the ratification documents of some states nullify the entire process has no basis in constitutional law. The certification of ratification by the Secretary of State was lawful, and the amendment remains a valid part of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Link something. I've heard thus about treaties and the income tax but not the 14th

Here is a PDF discussing the 14th being illegally ratified.
http://www.truthsetsusfree.com/14thAmendment.pdf

another

https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2053/Issue%202/Bryant.pdf

Then there are those that claim to be Sovereign Citizens/Pre-amble Citizens that espouse the 14th was illegally ratified.

https://resisters.freeforums.net/thread/205/pesky-14th-amendment

and

https://resisters.freeforums.net/search/results?captcha_id=captcha_search&what_at_least_one=14th+amendment&who_only_made_by=0&display_as=0&g-recaptcha-response=03AFcWeA77BWlroL5r7XwXX1O7q9tcWrW3TC6LKalUNKA3_Y2e0hBtyGisGDq_jPujlqrfePWPo1Jj_hIAOCCcWaE8y2-ZAuB17G_p-QnBy7bMLg3nws-fmDdVPfrsYBl7CzOT9pYay3B-F-889M6Bv1Pn2EYcuhfs6gM4AMJ6F75zvgk1j6MQIwpK87QbS0Wsu3XXKi91NNMUW_UBdI3T5UEvPHUuF3jw0WyKcIvs2hsSAWQqHt0kKhB051vf53yd-kJTbIJXSUiVky40gmeyPlVCxqVzHE_9kI9zRHIjOt8t42Wz4t3zZom6GW8wi9yhDj_3XOqjZzkngQHdpzLzAlO-BMh_5kHCGqF8yiZr-qf7nEIzArgqf-wIRXbKaA8o3a1_MMTSclqV9Ba15SbGxTXtGbVfcsokCmEKq9ZyFdrbJPOpnXCldrCsJfhyHwTCy0RZSq0_3F5MPXhkSma8owc-sOZkcMi3X7eM2ti2ZXkuWqZXzFPojERB4u497ZobZfozQxtOAVq4Tk8z8VDgtsXp3CsSc2n33GRKE3tcq3gxSWzZzmu6KlM9VwZKtuLdB3Lojb2wijeX7hWh5BrYyN_wgdU5XkNmsu4NiSRjxAjNUaI-WvKCKgukiOtycKP9CW-UpTOv-yD9j6A7Pj7RLH5mVqphGHBOaZ58ZR-tAkqCBO1junO1AXMxxo3Tiq9jVj5Q7szpndKEihg6Ydlus2Ih2BbcjR2R4PhkxeGKHvbYXPcpVZ6FBteltruFd_9NZi1Oknnn5yQXQD9y7lP5Ladech44CVNpwSj8JUNEgrDqQLuIIkB8oTFCFHjxPr66slxd4Qghn3IglmXKsJyqRzKJej36QM3xT0FWH4A1H7TTMsqpkwBELh8

 

[MalO]

Some historians and tax protesters argue that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified because several states allegedly made clerical errors in the ratification documents, such as typos or minor language changes. They claim that Secretary of State Knox improperly declared the amendment ratified despite these alleged irregularities.

The argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified has been repeatedly rejected by courts. In United States v. Thomas (1986), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that such claims were frivolous, emphasizing that the ratification process had been certified and was legally valid. The court stated, “Even if the ratification of the 16th Amendment were invalid, that would not excuse a citizen from paying income taxes.”

Moreover, the argument that minor errors in the ratification documents of some states nullify the entire process has no basis in constitutional law. The certification of ratification by the Secretary of State was lawful, and the amendment remains a valid part of the U.S. Constitution.

That's just all bullshit. You can't exclude half the country from voting on an amendment and claim it's legally ratified. It was not.

Texas certainly had sound legal grounds to bring the case to the SCOTUS. It was a national election, not a state election. The presidential election impacts all states and no each state does not have the right to conduct a national election "as they see fit" each state must be conducting a national election according to the same rules as everyone else!

You smell like a lawyer, and you're clearly part of the same corruption that is eating away at our republic, turning it into a fascist state!

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That's just all bullshit. You can't exclude half the country from voting on an amendment and claim it's legally ratified. It was not.

Texas certainly had sound legal grounds to bring the case to the SCOTUS. It was a national election, not a state election. The presidential election impacts all states and no each state does not have the right to conduct a national election "as they see fit" each state must be conducting a national election according to the same rules as everyone else!

You smell like a lawyer, and you're clearly part of the same corruption that is eating away at our republic, turning it into a fascist state!

Although the Southern states were under military rule during Reconstruction, they were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition for rejoining the Union, they had just ratified the 13th Amendment prior, and the 15th shortly after the 14th (so if the 14th is illegitimate, wouldn't the 13th and 15th be as well?). However, this argument overlooks the context of post-Civil War America: the Southern states had seceded, fought a war to preserve slavery, and their readmission into the Union was contingent upon guarantees that they would protect the rights of newly freed African Americans.

While some contend that this process was coercive, the amendment was accepted by the necessary number of states at the time, and it has since been foundational in shaping modern constitutional law, particularly in civil rights and equal protection cases. The courts have consistently recognized its validity for over 150 years.

As for the Texas lawsuit....
The U.S. Constitution gives individual states the authority to manage their own elections, even for national offices, under Article II, Section 1.

The Supreme Court rejected Texas's lawsuit on procedural grounds, citing a lack of standing. In legal terms, standing means that a party must have a direct stake in the outcome of a case. Texas, according to the court, did not have the legal right to interfere with how other states, like Pennsylvania, conducted their elections.

The rule of law still guides how cases are decided and how amendments are ratified. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have long upheld the legitimacy of both the 14th and 16th Amendments, as well as the processes surrounding the 2020 election.

It’s important to note that, while political opinions can vary widely, the legal frameworks that govern amendments and election law are built on established processes and principles. These frameworks allow for disagreements to be debated in courts, but ultimately the courts rely on precedent and the Constitution in making their rulings.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Here is a side note about the 14th Amendment, it was proposed and mimics the 1866 Civil Rights Act, so if for what ever reason the 14th was not legally ratified, you would still have the 1866 CRA to contend with.

 

[Joe King]

the legal frameworks that govern amendments and election law are built on established processes and principles.

The issue was that those "established processes and principles" weren't followed by some States.

So if another State with a stake in the election can't challenge it, who can? Nobody? They can just do whatever they want in order to ensure the preferred candidate "wins"?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The issue was that those "established processes and principles" weren't followed by some States.

So if another State with a stake in the election can't challenge it, who can? Nobody? They can just do whatever they want in order to ensure the preferred candidate "wins"?

The Supreme Court rejected Texas's lawsuit on procedural grounds, citing a lack of standing. In legal terms, standing means that a party must have a direct stake in the outcome of a case. Texas, according to the court, did not have the legal right to interfere with how other states, like Pennsylvania, conducted their elections.

An individual or group from Pennsylvania would be the only possibility of having standing in Pennsylvania regarding the election. Remember we are a Republic, not a Democracy, each individual state is in charge of elections in their own state, no other state has a say in another states process.

 

[Joe King]

The Supreme Court rejected Texas's lawsuit on procedural grounds, citing a lack of standing. In legal terms, standing means that a party must have a direct stake in the outcome of a case. Texas, according to the court, did not have the legal right to interfere with how other states, like Pennsylvania, conducted their elections.

An individual or group from Pennsylvania would be the only possibility of having standing in Pennsylvania regarding the election. Remember we are a Republic, not a Democracy, each individual state is in charge of elections in their own state, no other state has a say in another states process.

Well that may be how they ruled, but it's bullshit. Of course Texas has a stake in it, because Pennsylvania's election has a direct effect upon the outcome of a national election, and that outcome directly effects Texas and every other State.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Well that may be how they ruled, but it's bullshit. Of course Texas has a stake in it, because Pennsylvania's election has a direct effect upon the outcome of a national election, and that outcome directly effects Texas and every other State.

If that were true then every state could sue any state it didn't like the outcome in. Texas had no stake in it, only the body politic would have a stake in it. States are not the body politic. Basic civics.

 

[Joe King]

If that were true then every state could sue any state it didn't like the outcome in. Texas had no stake in it, only the body politic would have a stake in it. States are not the body politic. Basic civics.

It wasn't done because Texas simply didn't like the outcome, it was because of Pennsylvania didn't follow their own laws covering how the election was done.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It wasn't done because Texas simply didn't like the outcome, it was because of Pennsylvania didn't follow their own laws covering how the election was done.

Which is why someone in the state itself would have had to challenge it, not another State. A disenfranchised voter in Pennsylvania would be the one to bring the case.

 

[Joe King]

Which is why someone in the state itself would have had to challenge it, not another State. A disenfranchised voter in Pennsylvania would be the one to bring the case.

Even though the outcome of the election directly affected the other States.

Pennsylvania should have followed their own laws on the election. That they didn't, should have been grounds for the case to be heard.


IMHO, the reason they didn't hear the case, is due to the fact that the Justices would have had the woke mob descend upon their lives and that of their families, had they heard that case. So an excuse was made to not hear it.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Even though the outcome of the election directly affected the other States.

Yes

Pennsylvania should have followed their own laws on the election.

I agree

That they didn't, should have been grounds for the case to be heard.

By someone of the state of Pennsylvania who was disenfranchised in some way due to those laws not being followed.

 

[Joe King]

By someone of the state of Pennsylvania who was disenfranchised in some way due to those laws not being followed.

Texas was also disenfranchised due to PA making the election go the other way due to not following their own laws.

That PA did that, directly affected all of us.

 

[Joe King]

I understand that they made up an excuse to not hear the case, but the fact is, we were all directly affected by their (PA's) actions. Ie: the court was wrong.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Texas was also disenfranchised due to PA making the election go the other way due to not following their own laws.

That PA did that, directly affected all of us.

And California could say they were disenfranchised by Texas, it would never end. States can not sue other states over their voting laws, whether they followed their own laws or not.

I agree, what PA did by not following their own laws did have an effect on all of us, but that falls back on the voters in PA and nothing anybody else can do about it.

 

[Joe King]

And California could say they were disenfranchised by Texas, it would never end.

They should be able to if Texas did stuff that violated the law that also negatively affected CA. At that point, they'd be an injured party.

States can not sue other states over their voting laws, whether they followed their own laws or not.

In elections that effect all other States, they should be able to.

The Constitution is a Compact between the States. If a State does illegal stuff that directly affects all the other States, it seems like that should be something they can sue each other for.

I agree, what PA did by not following their own laws did have an effect on all of us, but that falls back on the voters in PA and nothing anybody else can do about it.

If it affects us in other States, that alone says that we should have standing.

That's how the courts work now for everything else. You can only sue if you've been harmed. Texas was in fact harmed due to PA not following the law.

I still think they did that as an excuse to not hear the evidence. Any Judge that would have heard any of those cases would have been putting themselves in the bullseye of the woke mob. None of 'em wanted that heat.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They should be able to if Texas did stuff that violated the law that also negatively affected CA. At that point, they'd be an injured party.



In elections that effect all other States, they should be able to.

The Constitution is a Compact between the States. If a State does illegal stuff that directly affects all the other States, it seems like that should be something they can sue each other for.


If it affects us in other States, that alone says that we should have standing.

That's how the courts work now for everything else. You can only sue if you've been harmed. Texas was in fact harmed due to PA not following the law.

I still think they did that as an excuse to not hear the evidence. Any Judge that would have heard any of those cases would have been putting themselves in the bullseye of the woke mob. None of 'em wanted that heat.

Let's see if this doesn't explain things better.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states have the primary authority to manage and conduct elections, even for federal offices like the presidency. Article II, Section 1 gives states the power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." This means that individual states set the rules for their own elections, provided they follow basic federal requirements like those established by the Voting Rights Act.

In 2020, some states changed election rules—often in response to the COVID-19 pandemic—leading to concerns about whether those changes followed proper procedures. These changes were often challenged in court, with varying outcomes, but the general principle that states manage their own elections was upheld.

If one state can't challenge another state's election procedures, the question remains: Who can? The answer lies in the separation of powers and the legal process within each state.

1. State Residents and Candidates: Typically, residents or candidates in the affected state have the legal standing to challenge that state's election laws or procedures. These challenges can be heard in state courts or, if constitutional rights are involved, federal courts.
2. Congress: When it comes to federal elections, the U.S. Congress also has a role. The Electoral College votes are certified by Congress, and members of Congress can raise objections to a state’s results. In 2021, some lawmakers attempted to do this during the certification process, but the objections were ultimately overruled.
3. Federal Courts: If election procedures in a state violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law, federal courts can intervene. For example, claims that a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or federal voting rights laws can be brought before federal courts.

In Texas v. Pennsylvania, Texas attempted to challenge the election procedures in four other states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by claiming that their irregularities harmed Texas voters. The Supreme Court rejected the case, stating that Texas lacked standing to challenge how another state conducted its election. The court reaffirmed that only those directly affected by the election results within a particular state—its residents and political candidates—can challenge that state's election laws.

While it’s understandable to question who has the right to hold states accountable, election oversight is primarily a matter for state courts, federal courts (in specific cases), and Congress during the certification process. State autonomy in managing elections, coupled with judicial review, ensures that disputes are handled through the legal system, not by allowing one state to intervene in another's elections.

 

[Joe King]

Let's see if this doesn't explain things better.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states have the primary authority to manage and conduct elections, even for federal offices like the presidency. Article II, Section 1 gives states the power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." This means that individual states set the rules for their own elections, provided they follow basic federal requirements like those established by the Voting Rights Act.

In 2020, some states changed election rules—often in response to the COVID-19 pandemic—leading to concerns about whether those changes followed proper procedures. These changes were often challenged in court, with varying outcomes, but the general principle that states manage their own elections was upheld.

If one state can't challenge another state's election procedures, the question remains: Who can? The answer lies in the separation of powers and the legal process within each state.

1. State Residents and Candidates: Typically, residents or candidates in the affected state have the legal standing to challenge that state's election laws or procedures. These challenges can be heard in state courts or, if constitutional rights are involved, federal courts.
2. Congress: When it comes to federal elections, the U.S. Congress also has a role. The Electoral College votes are certified by Congress, and members of Congress can raise objections to a state’s results. In 2021, some lawmakers attempted to do this during the certification process, but the objections were ultimately overruled.
3. Federal Courts: If election procedures in a state violate the U.S. Constitution or federal law, federal courts can intervene. For example, claims that a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or federal voting rights laws can be brought before federal courts.

In Texas v. Pennsylvania, Texas attempted to challenge the election procedures in four other states (Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) by claiming that their irregularities harmed Texas voters. The Supreme Court rejected the case, stating that Texas lacked standing to challenge how another state conducted its election. The court reaffirmed that only those directly affected by the election results within a particular state—its residents and political candidates—can challenge that state's election laws.

While it’s understandable to question who has the right to hold states accountable, election oversight is primarily a matter for state courts, federal courts (in specific cases), and Congress during the certification process. State autonomy in managing elections, coupled with judicial review, ensures that disputes are handled through the legal system, not by allowing one state to intervene in another's elections.

I understand their excuse for not hearing it, but to me it seems like if one State doesn't follow their own laws covering an election, and that election has national significance, how can it not harm all the other States? It in fact does harm them.

The Constitution is no different than a contract between the States, and parties to a contract can sue each other.

IMO, all they did (all the courts who refused to even look at the evidence, not just the SC) was to look for an out to not become the target of the woke mob.

Any Judge who woulda said yes, there is evidence of cheating would have been immediately attacked.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I understand their excuse for not hearing it, but to me it seems like if one State doesn't follow their own laws covering an election, and that election has national significance, how can it not harm all the other States? It in fact does harm them.

The Constitution is no different than a contract between the States, and parties to a contract can sue each other.

IMO, all they did (all the courts who refused to even look at the evidence, not just the SC) was to look for an out to not become the target of the woke mob.

Any Judge who woulda said yes, there is evidence of cheating would have been immediately attacked.

If the woke mob was an issue, wouldn't Roe v Wade have caused the same problem? SCOTUS ruling was valid in Texas v Pennsylvania.

 

[Joe King]

If the woke mob was an issue, wouldn't Roe v Wade have caused the same problem?

It did, just not as much as it would have if one of those judges said Trump was right. They woulda come unglued.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It did, just not as much as it would have if one of those judges said Trump was right. They woulda come unglued.

The woke mob whined and protested a bit, but that was it. After a short period of time they became irrelevant. Would be no different.

 

[Joe King]

The woke mob whined and protested a bit, but that was it. After a short period of time they became irrelevant. Would be no different.

Had any of 'em agreed with Trump, they woulda went ape shit crazy.

Personally, I think there was cheating, as there was in fact plenty of evidence that suggested there was. It would have been nice to at least have had it investigated.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Had any of 'em agreed with Trump, they woulda went ape shit crazy.

Personally, I think there was cheating, as there was in fact plenty of evidence that suggested there was. It would have been nice to at least have had it investigated.

I agree

 

[Joe King]

I agree

Another reason I think it was never properly investigated is that if it were and it found the allegations to be true, it would have destroyed the public trust in governmental institutions.

We already have deteriorated public trust. KNOWING there was fraud to such a degree would have wiped it out.
Because if this election had tampering, what about all the other elections prior to it? It would throw everything into doubt.

Gov doesn't work without at least some level of that public trust.

No one in gov wanted that kind of heat, either.