At no time ever have we had an election 2 years into a term for something that happened during the last election for that office. So no, there is no precedent.
At no time in history has a federal law enforcement agency raided a former presidents home either. Now there is precedent so Bush, Clinton, 0bama beware.
I didnt specify any sort of time period, you did. Yes precedent exists, where elections have been overturned after the fact, even after the "victor" serves some period of time in the office they held. 2 years, perhaps not. But there is a reason why election records are required to be held for a minimum of 22 months after the fact. If what is happening in present day does not fall into those reasons then why the requirement?
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
Plainly, they decide whether that particular congressional election was valid. Not anyone else.
Impeachment is the only method of removing a sitting president. Otherwise, they serve 4 years, and there are no other means to remove them.
If election of President/Vice President were a statutory creation and not Constitutionally created, a case could be made under Article III that a court could use equitable powers to remedy this. But because it is not a creature arising from statute, there is no lawful way for any court to intervene here. Congress is where the buck stops.
So, if the fraud fooled our congress people, there is no recourse? Even if a foreign power infiltrated our ranks and cheated from the inside? No recourse. Hmm,
Precedant exists
At no time ever have we had an election 2 years into a term for something that happened during the last election for that office. So no, there is no precedent.
At no time in history has a federal law enforcement agency raided a former presidents home either. Now there is precedent so Bush, Clinton, 0bama beware.
I didnt specify any sort of time period, you did. Yes precedent exists, where elections have been overturned after the fact, even after the "victor" serves some period of time in the office they held. 2 years, perhaps not. But there is a reason why election records are required to be held for a minimum of 22 months after the fact. If what is happening in present day does not fall into those reasons then why the requirement?
Not of house/senate/president/vice president.
Article I § 5 cl. 1
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
Plainly, they decide whether that particular congressional election was valid. Not anyone else.
Impeachment is the only method of removing a sitting president. Otherwise, they serve 4 years, and there are no other means to remove them.
If election of President/Vice President were a statutory creation and not Constitutionally created, a case could be made under Article III that a court could use equitable powers to remedy this. But because it is not a creature arising from statute, there is no lawful way for any court to intervene here. Congress is where the buck stops.
So, if the fraud fooled our congress people, there is no recourse? Even if a foreign power infiltrated our ranks and cheated from the inside? No recourse. Hmm,
Again, I stated no specific office. You did.
There is no precedent, but we have no President…