His meaning is that fraud nullifies any constitutional steps taken following the fraud. Once the fraud is discovered, any and all steps taken subsequent to and in faith of the fraud can be set aside, so that a new start can take place (a real election, not a faux election). Or, if it is clear that the fraud advantaged one side, grant the outcome to the remaining side.
There is the oft- repeated legal principle that "fraud vitiates everything." If fraud is discovered, and important legal consequences had followed from accepting the fraud as truth, then those consequences are nullified as being invalid fruit of the fraud.
We cannot use the Constitution to tie a noose of fraud around our neck, and then jump off the yardarm. We go back to the point of fraud, nullify whatever had proceeded, and re-enact events from that point. It will not be pretty...but executing people for treason will not be pretty, either, and there are plenty on this page that are good with that.
His meaning is that fraud nullifies any constitutional steps taken following the fraud. Once the fraud is discovered, any and all steps taken subsequent to and in faith of the fraud can be set aside, so that a new start can take place (a real election, not a faux election). Or, if it is clear that the fraud advantaged one side, grant the outcome to the remaining side.
Thank you!
And what is he basing this stance on? Is there any sort of legal precedent here?
There is the oft- repeated legal principle that "fraud vitiates everything." If fraud is discovered, and important legal consequences had followed from accepting the fraud as truth, then those consequences are nullified as being invalid fruit of the fraud.
We cannot use the Constitution to tie a noose of fraud around our neck, and then jump off the yardarm. We go back to the point of fraud, nullify whatever had proceeded, and re-enact events from that point. It will not be pretty...but executing people for treason will not be pretty, either, and there are plenty on this page that are good with that.
Thanks. Good points.
And all of what you say is basically Constitutional.