Qpost 4 Oct 29, 2017 states "What SC decision opened the door for a sitting President to activate - what must be showed?"
Searching through past cases I've found possible canidates but nothing that really sticks out IMO.
Q told us early on it had it be the military. Despite insurection taking place throughout the US by ANTIFA/BLM. It wasn't until the Capitol "breach" that it started gaining the attention of everyone. Mainly due to MSM pushing it to impeach President Trump. This caused a lot of people, fren and normie, to give the Insurection Act another look.
§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Did you catch it? "Make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings". You must show that the ordinary course of judicial proceedings is being fully obstructed and impracticable. What happens when every court refuses to hear your case, including SCOTUS?
The Supreme court decision NOT to hear the case opened the door for the President to "call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."
Q post 461
Jan 04, 2018 What makes a movie GOOD? GREAT ACTORS? Q
One idea came to me yesterday, reflecting on this (the rejection of the SC of Texas' suit, for example) 'no standing'.
Before I continue, I must say, I'm very much Jury-not-in on the whole 'US the People vs US Corp' theories (you know, Organic act of Dist. of Columbia 1871, US government being a corporation since then, not under the original constitution, but under a modified constitution, etc) BUT....
If this body of theory is true, then wouldn't it mean that Texas, for example, has no standing in the particular issue of "US Corporation" run elections?
Could this be why the case was rejected?
Reference: Bards FM Interview with Jim Pugh, By and For the People - Part 1
Interview with Jim Pugh, By and For the People - Part 12
Note: I'm looking more deeply into the Corp USA vs USA of the People stuff, but so far, I find it hard to be convinced. Too many claims, too little solid evidence. But I am keeping an open mind...
Lawyers is extremely good careers and reputations seemingly fail to do what many knew they could. Instead of going 100% and forcing courts to deal with the facts, instead they pushed for it to be heard publicly and on video by members of government in different states to present more information to people. It was a plan to shine a light on things that many may not have known which would cause them to question things and by questioning things is how someone can truly begin to awaken and see how things really are. It had to be this way.
I don't think that should have affected it either way. Unless Texas would still be considered under reconstruction...? I'm not convinced either, but I hadn't thought about it that way.