"He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions"
Ruled on by the Courts when they are regularly functional. Though during time of war, which we have been in since 2001, it makes military tribunals a possibility. See MCA. Also see Graham's questioning during Kavanaugh hearing.
Thats right but SC can go forward with the case at which time the military is called to remove them. Although you and I know that is not going to happen. Originally the case did not include the option to dismiss and the SC Secretary advised they needed to add that in before it is excepted by SC. That tells me they intend to dismiss it.
Supreme Court cannot remove them but the military can if it is for treason.
IMO, Supreme Court has the power to convict them for treason and accordingly remove them from holding office!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
"He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions"
Ruled on by the Courts when they are regularly functional. Though during time of war, which we have been in since 2001, it makes military tribunals a possibility. See MCA. Also see Graham's questioning during Kavanaugh hearing.
BINGO! That's why this is a national security case and not a case of "the Dems stole the election" which has zero standing.
Thats right but SC can go forward with the case at which time the military is called to remove them. Although you and I know that is not going to happen. Originally the case did not include the option to dismiss and the SC Secretary advised they needed to add that in before it is excepted by SC. That tells me they intend to dismiss it.