The people whose job it is to remove them due to being fraudulently elected, are the same people who watched them get fraudulently elected and did nothing to stop it. Why would they do anything NOW when they didn't do anything THEN?
Exactly my first thought. Who's gonna remove Biden? Congress? Nope - they're fucking in on it and helped PUT him there. SCOTUS? Nope, they sat on their hands and wouldn't even hear a fucking CASE's evidence from 18 states - denied on "standing" when there is NO OTHER court BESIDES the Supreme Court that would be exactly where states suing other states would have "standing."
I think if the military was going to intervene, that ALSO would have happened long before now. Either there's a lot more happening in the background than we can possibly understand (with next to no information) or the Deep State has already won. I can't stomach the thought of the latter, so I just keep praying for a miracle.
I think there is more going on than we know about. Trump wouldn’t just give up then say the best is yet to come. It doesn’t make sense unless there is a plan.
Unfortunately, this precedent doesn't fit the presidency. The Supreme Court cannot undo what the Electoral College and the Congress have done via constitutional means.
Forced resignation is an option, but that leaves us without a President, or worse, puts Pelosi in the White House.
False. Might want to do some research on the legal principle of restitution. If a state court can undo a state election, a federal court can certainly do the same to a federal election. The question isn't whether it can be done, but rather HOW is it to be done? SCOTUS has no real enforcement power. The current executive is illegitimate and won't remove himself from fake office. The only way is the military.
You're comparing a state election which is regulated by a state laws, to a federal election which is regulated by the Constitution, the law of the land. The Constitution gives plenary powers to state legislatures in their electoral college appointments.
There is no restitution. There is no constitutional way around this, other than impeachment, 25A, or continuity of government/line of succession.
You're making my point for me. The armed forces will have to mutiny. They would have to force resignation of the legal (but not lawful) Executive branch, and hold a new election, or they could skip elections and install themselves as the executive.
Don't misunderstand: Biden is absolutely a fraudulent office-holder. But he does hold the office.
Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level and significance. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, some of which impacted results.
But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.
Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.
Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congress redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final.
I guess I'd like to drill down on this part. My contention is that SCOTUS has no authority to override the legislatures' appointments, especially when those legislatures themselves made no serious effort to revoke consent to those appointments. In this particular case, the state legislatures have a higher constitutional authority than anything the Supreme Court could say.
And frankly, I would find it outrageous if SCOTUS could willy nilly invalidate electoral votes. Think of a hypothetical in which a lawsuit alleged that minority voting rights had been disproportionately violated because of voter ID.
You are correct that state legislatures are allowed to choose the electors, and Congress is allowed to certify the electoral votes, but that presupposes all sides have followed the Constitution in doing so. Otherwise, their actions were not properly conducted within the Constitution and therefore are not binding. SCOTUS does get to determine if something is constitutional. If SCOTUS decides that an election violated the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, then the fact that Congress or a state certified it is meaningless, because the whole process is already unconstitutional even before the certification. Indeed, this is exactly the argument SCOTUS used in Bush v. Gore in 2000. So it is not willy nilly invalidating electoral votes. It is invalidating a result specifically because the process used violated the highest law of the land.
In your example, if minority voting rights genuinely had been disproportionately violated due to voter ID, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and that violation demonstrably changed the outcome of the election, then SCOTUS would not only have the right but also the duty to correct the problem. We have arrived at this point in time today specifically because SCOTUS vitiated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
So, no, they never override a legislature's appointments. They simply rule that the legislature never legally appointed anyone in this circumstance because the procedure they used violated the Constitution. Then, they can offer remedies on how to correct the illegal action.
The problem, as I see it, is this:
The people whose job it is to remove them due to being fraudulently elected, are the same people who watched them get fraudulently elected and did nothing to stop it. Why would they do anything NOW when they didn't do anything THEN?
Military tribunal.
Some of the cases did get through. How do you think we got the forensic audit?
Each case like that sets a precedent which makes future cases a little easier, until the dam breaks.
Antrim forensic audit
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772/antrim-county-forensics-report.pdf
https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=Antrim%20forensic%20audit
That's Duck Duck Go. Let me DDG for you.
Exactly my first thought. Who's gonna remove Biden? Congress? Nope - they're fucking in on it and helped PUT him there. SCOTUS? Nope, they sat on their hands and wouldn't even hear a fucking CASE's evidence from 18 states - denied on "standing" when there is NO OTHER court BESIDES the Supreme Court that would be exactly where states suing other states would have "standing."
I think if the military was going to intervene, that ALSO would have happened long before now. Either there's a lot more happening in the background than we can possibly understand (with next to no information) or the Deep State has already won. I can't stomach the thought of the latter, so I just keep praying for a miracle.
"Military is the only way", "80% covert, 20% public"
NCSWIC.
I think there is more going on than we know about. Trump wouldn’t just give up then say the best is yet to come. It doesn’t make sense unless there is a plan.
Read up on Trump's EO's on <succession> for each department.
If this applies to the top, it can apply from the top-down until someone good and clean fills the spot.
Not to mention, DS needs their pensions which need the CCP.
This would mean all the Democrats both house and senate are illegal alomg with 75% orepublicans would be gone.
Hell no great loss as these fuckers accomplish nothing for the people
Good find!
Military is the only way. They will not remove one of their own
Just replace "widespread voter apathy" with "the Pandemic".
" Nonetheless, campaign workers testified that widespread voter apathy had prompted them to promote a "new way to vote" to ensure a victory."
Unfortunately, this precedent doesn't fit the presidency. The Supreme Court cannot undo what the Electoral College and the Congress have done via constitutional means.
Forced resignation is an option, but that leaves us without a President, or worse, puts Pelosi in the White House.
False. Might want to do some research on the legal principle of restitution. If a state court can undo a state election, a federal court can certainly do the same to a federal election. The question isn't whether it can be done, but rather HOW is it to be done? SCOTUS has no real enforcement power. The current executive is illegitimate and won't remove himself from fake office. The only way is the military.
You're comparing a state election which is regulated by a state laws, to a federal election which is regulated by the Constitution, the law of the land. The Constitution gives plenary powers to state legislatures in their electoral college appointments.
There is no restitution. There is no constitutional way around this, other than impeachment, 25A, or continuity of government/line of succession.
You're making my point for me. The armed forces will have to mutiny. They would have to force resignation of the legal (but not lawful) Executive branch, and hold a new election, or they could skip elections and install themselves as the executive.
Don't misunderstand: Biden is absolutely a fraudulent office-holder. But he does hold the office.
Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level and significance. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, some of which impacted results.
But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.
Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.
I guess I'd like to drill down on this part. My contention is that SCOTUS has no authority to override the legislatures' appointments, especially when those legislatures themselves made no serious effort to revoke consent to those appointments. In this particular case, the state legislatures have a higher constitutional authority than anything the Supreme Court could say.
And frankly, I would find it outrageous if SCOTUS could willy nilly invalidate electoral votes. Think of a hypothetical in which a lawsuit alleged that minority voting rights had been disproportionately violated because of voter ID.
You are correct that state legislatures are allowed to choose the electors, and Congress is allowed to certify the electoral votes, but that presupposes all sides have followed the Constitution in doing so. Otherwise, their actions were not properly conducted within the Constitution and therefore are not binding. SCOTUS does get to determine if something is constitutional. If SCOTUS decides that an election violated the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, then the fact that Congress or a state certified it is meaningless, because the whole process is already unconstitutional even before the certification. Indeed, this is exactly the argument SCOTUS used in Bush v. Gore in 2000. So it is not willy nilly invalidating electoral votes. It is invalidating a result specifically because the process used violated the highest law of the land.
In your example, if minority voting rights genuinely had been disproportionately violated due to voter ID, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and that violation demonstrably changed the outcome of the election, then SCOTUS would not only have the right but also the duty to correct the problem. We have arrived at this point in time today specifically because SCOTUS vitiated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
So, no, they never override a legislature's appointments. They simply rule that the legislature never legally appointed anyone in this circumstance because the procedure they used violated the Constitution. Then, they can offer remedies on how to correct the illegal action.
Fraud vitriates any Election. Period end of story...