It's not only not clear, it's absolutely silent. The redditors are right, in that no process exists in the constitution to correct this. That doesn't mean it can't be corrected, just that the fix is outside the constitution.
FWIW, there may be laws which, if already acted upon in advance, may already have disqualified all of congress and everything they're performing today. I subscribe to the "Bidet was never inaugurated anyway" theory, but that's a deduction. I don't have proof. But the constitution is easy to read and understand, so that part is easy to check.
The law of war is not a part of the constitution. It's a procedures manual, a set of dos and don'ts, based on recognized moral conduct even when normal laws don't apply, that has been developed over time. For anyone that wants to split hairs, it's clear that the constitution provides ways to make our government match our desires, but it does not have a "reverse the election" mechanism. The courts could make one up, but there isn't one that's already made.
I'm all for a resolution that brings us back to our constitutional republic, clawing us back to pre 1871 before the US Corporation, and before the fed began to cast and spread its tendrils of increasingly centralized power, and using the law of war to get us there. I'm convinced that's the plan, and I'm all for it. But I think we're in extra-constitutional territory when that happens. If it's within the constitution, I'd love to see the explanation.
Look on Bitchute for video of Law of War by Majic Eyes Qnly. a bit over an hour and it links sections of Law of War with Q drops tied to it. I recommend it highly as it explains the duties of the military during a belligerent occupation of territory-DC is NOT American territory..
Good resource: I saw it, and his sequel. I recommend it to others as well. He found an important key to clearly understand a good portion of the Q drops. We're totally on the same side. Just a debate about some of the legal details on how we get there.
It's not only not clear, it's absolutely silent. The redditors are right, in that no process exists in the constitution to correct this. That doesn't mean it can't be corrected, just that the fix is outside the constitution.
FWIW, there may be laws which, if already acted upon in advance, may already have disqualified all of congress and everything they're performing today. I subscribe to the "Bidet was never inaugurated anyway" theory, but that's a deduction. I don't have proof. But the constitution is easy to read and understand, so that part is easy to check.
Law of War is the go to Constitutional way..
The law of war is not a part of the constitution. It's a procedures manual, a set of dos and don'ts, based on recognized moral conduct even when normal laws don't apply, that has been developed over time. For anyone that wants to split hairs, it's clear that the constitution provides ways to make our government match our desires, but it does not have a "reverse the election" mechanism. The courts could make one up, but there isn't one that's already made.
I'm all for a resolution that brings us back to our constitutional republic, clawing us back to pre 1871 before the US Corporation, and before the fed began to cast and spread its tendrils of increasingly centralized power, and using the law of war to get us there. I'm convinced that's the plan, and I'm all for it. But I think we're in extra-constitutional territory when that happens. If it's within the constitution, I'd love to see the explanation.
Look on Bitchute for video of Law of War by Majic Eyes Qnly. a bit over an hour and it links sections of Law of War with Q drops tied to it. I recommend it highly as it explains the duties of the military during a belligerent occupation of territory-DC is NOT American territory..
Good resource: I saw it, and his sequel. I recommend it to others as well. He found an important key to clearly understand a good portion of the Q drops. We're totally on the same side. Just a debate about some of the legal details on how we get there.
I agree 100%. That said, it doesn't seem to be detailed in the constitution. If it is, I'd like to see where.
Might not be in the constitution, but when the military steps in to bring Trump back, what army do the courts have to prevent this?
I'm on your side, patriot fren. Amen!