I get a lot of flack (maybe even crucified) for this because this is one of the few topics I do not buy into at all. I won't say that a state or handful of states are not going to do this. But I 250% believe that it will be nothing more than a loud protest. Nothing is going to unseat brandon besides impeachment. Perhaps decertification will be followed up with more detailed and damning fraud evidence than the damning evidence we've already seen? I'm not against decertifying - it absolutely must happen. But I am against delusional thinking that this will undo 2020. And I am absolutely against making exceptions to the Constitution for any reason.

People can talk about muh diamonds and whatever...for people who want the Constitution interpreted as it is written, you can't have muh diamonds and originalism at the same time. Just take a look at Art. 1 § 5 cl. 1:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Plainly, muh diamonds don't have to be returned if you steal a house or senate seat unless the particular house decides they have to be. They can permit you to hold office by fraud. Would people be cool with that? No. But you are stuck until you can vote out enough fraud supporters nationwide to remove fraudulent office holders. That is, unless you just disregard the Constitution...

The principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" governs the analysis. It basically means that the express inclusion of one thing is to the exclusion of all others. Which is to say, if the Constitution includes a provision for each house to judge the elections/returns/qualifications of its members, that would be to the exclusion of all other possible persons/groups judging the elections/returns/qualifications.

This is held quite literally. In Powell v. McCormack (1969), Adam Clayton Powell had been accused of committing some misdeeds - paying his wife a congressional salary for not actually working, misappropriating travel funds, and other malfeasance. When he won his election, the house refused to seat him. They even voted by over 2/3rds to not seat him. He was barred from entering the floor, and they didn't pay him his salary. He sued. And he prevailed.

SCOTUS said that Congress does not have authority in the Constitution to refuse to seat Powell. While the speaker tried to equate voting to exclude Powell with voting to expel him, SCOTUS disagreed. And refused to speculate whether the House would have voted to expel Powell if that issue was put before the members for a vote. Although it is quite probable they would have expelled him, he wasn't seated so he could not be expelled. And the House did not ever have a vote on expelling him.

In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton (1995), SCOTUS overturned an Arkansas statute on term limits for congress. The holding was that states do not possess authority to add additional qualifications to hold office beyond what the Constitution requires. Having a requirement that a candidate for the House is ineligible if they have served 3 terms was held to be imposing a qualification for the office not in the Constitution.

Arkansas tried to argue that they possessed this power under the 10th Amendment as original powers reserved to them. But this was rejected. Because the powers to set qualifications for members of Congress could only arise out of the creation of Congress by the Constitution. Thus, it could not be considered to pre-date the Constitution - it never existed until the Constitution itself created it.

In the same way, states cannot alter the length of a house or senate term above or below the 2 and 6 year terms provided by the Constitution. Nor can Congress. And nobody can alter the 4 year term of President. Because the Constitution provides for removal of the President via impeachment, and a process in the 25th amendment - to the exclusion of all other possible methods. Muh diamonds returned or not.

People love quoting dicta from U.S. v. Throckmorton (1878), which itself was a quote from an early 1700s english law treatise "fraud vitiates every thing . . . ." Aside from the fact that this is purely dicta, and not of precedential value, people never bothered to read the case holding. And apparently, fraud doesn't vitiate every thing, because SCOTUS didn't vitiate the decree at issue in the case. Even though the party bringing suit claimed the decree was fraudulent. They affirmed the lower court's dismissal. No court ever heard the fraud claim.

I know quite a few people here will be interested in this argument, even if they might not agree. I also know that there will be a bunch of seethers come in and downvote the shit out of this without having the balls to make a legitimate argument why this is wrong besides reciting more platitudes and cliches with no Constitutional substance. I look forward to reading anyone with a good faith argument on where I am wrong. I have no vested interest in being right here...just a vested interest in staying within Constitutional bounds and not deluding myself. Frankly, I wish this were not an accurate assessment of the situation...