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.
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.