“It Should Be that He Is Simply Reinstated, That a New Inauguration Day Is Set” – Sidney Powell Speaks in TX on What Happens After the Fraud Is Exposed

The Gateway Pundit ^ | May 29, 2021 | Jim Hoft

[mrsmith]

I invite you and all your fellow Constitution-haters to address remarks to me here.

[MHGinTN]

You are a lying little nettle trying to find relevancy in your purposed mischaracterizations. Your methodology is childish and never rising above being an agitprop smartaleck. You call Dr Franklin and me and anyone laughing at your childish crap ‘constitution haters’. Such a blatant non sequitur settles your irrelevance. Bye bye fool

[Dr. Franklin]

Where it says the Congress decides the election. That also negates it entertaining any “quo warrento” challenge to the Congress and state’s determination.

No, Congress certifies the election, in modern practice, based upon certifications by state governors as to who won each states presidential electors. The power to declare fraudulently certified winner of the electoral vote, through a writ of quo warranto is a judicial power given to the federal courts in Article III. Congress has no power to issue such a writ, since to do so, violates separation of powers.

I realize you hate the Constitution for not giving you what you want in this instance.

'Tis you who hate the Constitution for not being written in the Napoleonic Code style of France. Ours is common law tradition, and the judicial power in the constitution is dispensed with common sense. You also hate the Guarantee Clause of the constitution, which guarantees us a "Republican form of government". You leftists really hate that idea.

[mrsmith]

LOL!
Hate our Founder all you want.
No one cares. They were inspired geniuses- you’re just another nut on the internet.

[mrsmith]

“Congress certifies the election, in modern practice,”
NOT “in modern practice” LOL!
What a stupid lie.

Our Founders set a method for the states and people to elect the President- and you hate it.
I don’t care, I think you’re fools to dispute our Founders.

[Political Junkie Too]

Interesting view, but we do not elect Presidents by popular vote.

Please show me where I said anything about "popular vote."

What I did say was "The question then becomes, must these failures of qualifications be discovered before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College, be discovered before the Congressional count, or be discovered before the oath of office to be valid for the 20th amendment? If so, it rewards cover-up by any means by the very same bad-faith actors."

Is it your opinion that precedent can be set as long as the crime is covered up past Constitutional deadlines, even though those deadlines are measured in a handful of weeks?

-PJ

[mrsmith]

What the Constitution says rules. We agree on that.

I disregard timelines to focus on what the Constitution SAYS- which is that the states and Congress determine the election.
There is no appeal from their decision under the Constitution.
None.

[NetAddicted]

I don’t understand the meaning of your response to my post.

[Political Junkie Too]

There is no appeal from their decision under the Constitution. None.

That was my first post on this thread, which you must have seen.

After that post, I explored the possibility of a 20th amendment argument. It's the only opening in the Constitution for an appeal, if one is willing to accept the premise that we don't reward criminals, and therefore, there is no statute of limitations on "failure to qualify."

-PJ

[mrsmith]

No, I didn’t see that.
Did assume you were being intelligent in your responses,
Hope that showed.

[Political Junkie Too]

Did assume you were being intelligent in your responses, Hope that showed.

Sorry, but the comment about "popular vote" showed otherwise. I didn't say anything about it and you didn't retract your statement about it.

-PJ

[mrsmith]

Well, the dispute seems to me to be about manipulation of the popular vote.
That doesn’t matter under the Constitution.

But you’re claiming it does- as a “disqualification” under Amend 20.

Am I wrong?

[ViLaLuz]

I often think of the time that fly landed on Pence’s head on live TV.

[Political Junkie Too]

But you’re claiming it does- as a “disqualification” under Amend 20. Am I wrong?

First, let me apologize for mixing my threads. I cross-posted this 20th amendment post from another thread, and it was in that thread that I began with the statement that the election was done with no recourse. You weren't in that other thread and would not have seen my original post.

The popular vote is a national vote concept, an accumulation of 50 state votes. This thread was about reinstatement, and the thread I originally posted in was about the Georgia audit. It was in the context of a state revoking its certification that I introduced the idea of using the 20th amendment "failure to qualify" argument as a beginning of a strategy to reinstate the true winner.

The difference is that it isn't a challenge to the "popular vote," but a targeted challenge to only those states where internal audits uncovered proof of results-changing fraud, such as 30,000 fake mail-in ballots printed on different paper stock with no folds and not tied in any way to a true voter.

If a state can show incontrovertible proof of a tainted election where the wrong candidate was certified due to the actions of bad-faith officials, is there a statute of limitations on that?

If enough states can meet that burden of proof and revoke their certifications such that the sitting President no longer qualifies, is that actionable or has the statute of limitations (about six weeks) passed and the crooks are rewarded for their crime and cover-up?

That's the question that I posed, and that's as far as the conversation has gotten so far.

-PJ

[mrsmith]

Lot there that I’ll assume I’m absolved from.

Again.
The Constitution says that the Congress will consider the results supplied by the states’ legislatures.

They did and that’s the end of it.

No argument under the 20th, no arguments at all.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's fine. That's a valid position to take, and was also my starting position.

It's just the one that says that crime does pay if you and your accomplices after the fact can cover it up for just a mere six weeks.

I simply asked: 1) is there a loophole in the 20th that can be exploited (i.e. fail to qualify), and 2) does anyone have the spine to pursue it, or do we all just talk ourselves out of it in the exact opposite way that a Democrat would approach it?

-PJ

[mrsmith]

Sorry, don’t see a “loophole”. Though Leftists no doubt would.
And would have the media behind them.

[Political Junkie Too]

Sorry, don’t see a “loophole”. Though Leftists no doubt would.

Then it is we who are not fighting hard enough, if it can be seen that a leftist would see a loophole.

If we can see that a leftist would see it, then why don't we act on it, too, because we know that a leftist would if the roles were reversed?

Why do we always assume the worst case and talk ourselves out of even trying? Is it a case of winning by losing? Is it a case of the pride of taking the high road while losing the war?

My point has always been that we have a 100% chance of losing the fights we don't engage, but nobody knows what might happen if we make it a fight.

Is there a 20th amendment argument to make regarding failure to qualify? Is there an argument to make that failure to qualify is retroactive, because Congress has remedies? Is there an argument to make that states can revoke their certifications if serious crimes are uncovered?

We would never find out if we don't press the attack because we assume failure before even starting. Democrats are never this timid, they always assume success and push and push and push until they achieve it.

-PJ

[mrsmith]

No.
The media will advocate for their lies.
But not ours.

[mrsmith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elpH46dOyQ
But...
“Watch out where the Huskies Go...”