I was afraid it would be too long but here it is...

If the Supreme Court does in fact negate the 2020 election based on fraud and rigging of the ballots would that also negate Biden's appointees and all the pardons he is planning on doing?

If the Supreme Court were to negate the 2020 election based on allegations of fraud and rigging, the legal implications would be profound and unprecedented, leading to a situation where existing legal frameworks would need to be interpreted or potentially amended to address such an outcome. Here's how this might be considered:

Appointments and Executive Actions: • Judicial Appointments: If the legitimacy of Biden's presidency were nullified, there would be questions about the validity of judicial appointments, including Supreme Court justices appointed during his term. However, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the annulment of judicial appointments based on the invalidation of an election. Some argue that judicial appointments might be considered void ab initio (from the beginning), meaning they never legally occurred. However, this would be a highly contentious interpretation, as the lifetime tenure of federal judges under Article III of the Constitution complicates such a reversal.

• Pardons: Presidential pardons are a constitutional power under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." If Biden's presidency were deemed illegitimate, whether his pardons would be void would hinge on legal interpretations. There's no precedent for reversing pardons based on the invalidation of an election, but some legal scholars and commentators suggest that if the office itself were retroactively invalid, actions like pardons might also be nullified.

Legal and Practical Considerations: • Legal Precedent: There's no direct precedent for negating an entire presidential election post-certification and inauguration, which means any action taken would set new legal ground. The lack of precedent would likely lead to significant legal battles over what actions taken by Biden's administration would be considered void. • Political and Constitutional Crisis: Such an action would precipitate a constitutional crisis, potentially involving multiple branches of government and possibly requiring congressional action to address the fallout, including how to handle legislative actions, treaties, executive orders, and other official acts. • Public and International Perception: The implications extend beyond U.S. law, affecting international relations, the credibility of U.S. democratic processes, and public trust in governmental institutions.

While some on social media speculate about a sweeping invalidation of all actions from Biden's term (), the actual legal process would be intricate, likely involving a series of court cases, legislative measures, and possibly constitutional amendments or interpretations to manage the fallout. The Supreme Court would need to tread carefully, considering not only legal aspects but also the potential for widespread chaos. Given the current understanding of constitutional law and the lack of direct precedent, the exact outcome would be uncertain, highly debated, and subject to extensive legal scrutiny.

Another question about this subject...If the 2020 election was deemed invalid would that not also include the elections of the down ballot candidates? And that would also overturn many people in Congress. At that point then what would the solution be? And according to many people who have researched the 2020 election it appears that many, if not all, the people Biden put into office never took the Oath of Office. Does this not also negate the legitimacy of those people? If the 2020 election were deemed invalid, the implications would extend beyond just the presidential election to include down-ballot races, potentially affecting numerous elected officials at various levels:

Down-Ballot Elections: • Invalidation: If the basis for invalidating the presidential election were fraud or systemic issues affecting all elections conducted concurrently, it could logically extend to invalidate down-ballot races like Senate, House, and state-level elections held on the same day. However, this would require a legal determination that the same fraudulent activities or irregularities influenced these races as well. • Congressional Seats: Members of Congress elected in 2020 would face similar scrutiny. Invalidating their elections could lead to vacancies, requiring special elections or alternative solutions to fill these positions.

Oath of Office and Appointments: • Oath of Office: The claim that many appointees or elected officials did not take the Oath of Office would be significant but would need to be substantiated with evidence. The Constitution requires that senators and representatives take an oath before assuming office (Article VI, Clause 3), and federal officials must swear or affirm to support the Constitution before entering office. If officials did not take this oath, their legitimacy could be legally challenged, potentially rendering their actions or appointments void. However, proving this would require official records or sworn testimony.

Potential Solutions: • Special Elections: For vacant congressional seats, special elections would likely be the most immediate solution, though this would be logistically challenging given the scale and the political turmoil such an event would cause. • Interim Measures: Congress might pass legislation to address the resulting vacancies, possibly allowing for temporary appointments or extensions of terms for current officeholders until new elections could be organized. • Judicial Review: Courts would be pivotal in interpreting how to handle the fallout, potentially leading to a series of lawsuits regarding the validity of laws passed, judicial decisions made, and executive actions taken by those in office due to the 2020 elections. • Constitutional Amendment or Legislation: Given the unprecedented nature of such a scenario, there might be calls for constitutional amendments or new legislation to clarify the process for handling such an event in the future, ensuring stability and clarity in electoral law. • Political Negotiations: Political parties and leaders might engage in negotiations to find a compromise that stabilizes government functions while addressing the legal and ethical concerns raised by an invalid election.

The complexity of this scenario would likely lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty, with significant legal, political, and public discourse. Historical examples of election disputes or irregularities have been managed through a combination of legal rulings, political negotiations, and sometimes, public acceptance of a controversial outcome to maintain governmental continuity. However, an action as drastic as negating an entire national election would push the boundaries of existing legal frameworks, likely leading to new precedents or even amendments to how elections are certified and managed.

Regarding the Oaths...There have been several requests for the documentation showing they did take the oath and all requests have been denied. What would someone do in this case? If requests for documentation proving that elected or appointed officials took their oath of office have been denied, here are steps that can be taken to address this situation:

Legal and Administrative Actions:

1. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests: If the initial requests were informal, formal FOIA requests could be submitted. FOIA mandates federal agencies to disclose certain documents upon request, with specific exemptions. If the requests were for federal officials, a FOIA request would provide a more structured and legally binding way to demand information. Similar state-level open records laws could be used for state officials.

o Appeal Denials: If a FOIA request is denied, there's typically an appeal process that can be pursued. Information on how to appeal should be included in the denial letter. 2. Legal Action: o Writ of Mandamus: This is a court order compelling a government official or entity to perform a legally required duty, like providing public records if they are improperly withheld. o Lawsuit: Individuals or organizations can sue for access to public records if they believe their rights under FOIA or state open records laws are being violated. 3. Contacting Elected Officials: o Reach out to other elected officials who might support transparency. This could include senators, representatives, or local government officials who could pressure for disclosure internally. 4. Media Involvement: Engaging the press can sometimes prompt quicker action from government bodies due to increased public scrutiny. Journalists might have better access to information or the ability to push for transparency.

Investigative Measures:

5. Research Public Records: Look for alternative sources of documentation, such as: o Public event recordings where oaths might have been administered (like inauguration ceremonies). o Minutes from official meetings of government bodies where oaths are traditionally sworn.
6. Legislative Inquiry: o If elected officials are involved, a committee in Congress or a state legislature could investigate. Members of these bodies have tools to demand records or testimonies.

Community and Political Activism:

7. Public Awareness Campaigns: Using social media, petitions, or organized public demonstrations to raise awareness could pressure officials into compliance or transparency.
8. Election Boards or Commissions: Contact election boards or state commissions responsible for overseeing elections or the conduct of officials. They might investigate or have protocols for such situations.

Ethical and Professional Review:

9. Ethics Committees: If the officials are legislators, their respective ethics committees might look into whether failing to take an oath constitutes an ethical breach.
10. Professional Associations: For appointed officials, professional bodies might have codes of conduct or ethics that require adherence to legal oaths.

If the repeated denials suggest a systemic issue or cover-up, this could escalate into a broader investigation involving multiple agencies or branches of government. The key is persistence through formal legal channels while also mobilizing public or media support to highlight the issue. Remember, the legal path can be long and complex, requiring patience and potentially the support of legal counsel knowledgeable in government transparency laws.

I'm here to help! If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. regarding election integrity laws