Posted on 07/20/2021 4:51:15 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin
Another fantasist.
But you’re making the same argument made in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas’s majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the Constitution. Seeing things in the text that aren’t physically there eventually means the text is irrelevant. That’s the “Living Constitution” idea. This is what the Left does to the Constitution. After awhile there is no Constitution restraining state power, it just a matter of which group of political thugs intimidate or shout the loudest. Maybe that’s where we are today but advocating it is hardly a conservative stance.
Another leftist telling others not to talk. You leave clues to what you are with every post so keep it up.
Your absent comprehension of the implications of fraud cancels your assertions.
That's the rub. The date to resolve Electoral Votes has passed for this election cycle and Pres. Trump's Constitutionally defined term date has passed as well. We now have good prospects of an election being cited for fraud and being labeled UNLAWFUL due to that fraud. Fraud vitiate everything, including Presidential inaugurations. To that end resident Biden is not allowed to keep his ill-gotten prize because HE DID NOT QUALIFY due to fraud that was not detected until after his inauguration. But there is no statute of limitations in play here. That ALSO includes the Congressional candidates in the election. So their votes in Congress can all be nullified due to fraud, which is a good basis of a quo warranto motion to let Congress know who to eject from their bodies DUE TO FRAUD (they don't qualify). Now look up unqualified President and VP in the Constitution, which sets forth the path forward.
Nope. Austria was March 1938.
You are looking for Poland, September 1, 1939.
The Austrians LOVED Hitler and the German Army. Accounting for population, there were more SS-men from Austria than Germany. Eichmann was from Austria. Skorzeny and Kaltenbrunner were Austrians. Hitler, of course, was born and raised in Austria.
It was joyous Austrians who tore down the border barriers, strew rose petals on the ground to welcome the Wehrmacht, who welcomed Hitler to Vienna with loud hosannas.
There is a very common saying: "The Austrians are very clever, to convince the world that Beethoven was an Austrian and Hitler was a German".
I've learned a lot during my time here on FR. And one thing I have learned is that the chance of learning anything useful or even factual from one of your posts generally hovers somewhere between zilch and none.
The fundamental point here is that you can put stuff in the US Constitution that is not in there...
So I've seen from many of your past posts.
...and so the argument "But that isn't in the US Constitution!" is meaningless when confronted with sufficient political power.
Your contempt for the Constitution is duly noted. So I see.
So far as you have shown.
There is no sincerity in your inquiry so I shall not bother making an effort to explain it to you.
LOL! Of course you won't.
You're forgetting the small matter of 67 votes needed in the Senate to convict and remove. Where are those going to come from?
Again, you just ignore the fact that an election declared UNLAWFUL from fraud renders all candidates as unqualified and subject to a quo warranto motion ('... by what authority do you claim to be holder of the office?'). When the unlawfully seated Congress critters are removed, it won't take 67 votes any longer, will it? It might take a new Speaker of the House, though ...
Declared unlawful by whom?
When the unlawfully seated Congress critters are removed, it won't take 67 votes any longer, will it?
Sure it will. Article I, Section 3.
Trump had a legal team that was being paid to advise him, or they were political partisans who wanted him to win the election. There was nothing objective about what they were saying. If they were Biden advisors or they were partisan Democrats they would have been saying the exact opposite. That's what partisans and paid flacks do.
Those same constitutional scholars would have laughed you out of the room if you had suggested that Vice President Joe Biden had the absolute authority to stop the certification of Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton in January 2017.
Or in an even more ridiculous scenario ... imagine if we were talking about Vice President Al Gore presiding over the joint session of Congress in January 2001, and he took it upon himself to stop the certification process for the election he had just lost to George W. Bush.
Please stop posting this nonsense. It falls apart on its face when you present the obvious problems with this silly idea that the VP has the full discretion to act on his own as the sole arbiter of a presidential election.
Given the difficulty of anyone defending Biden throughout this and not being wiped off the map in the next election. So, yes, the votes will most likely come from winning the Senate, if not before.
Winning the Senate is one thing. Winning 67 seats is quite another and, given the 2022 Senate races, completely impossible.
It's astonishing that we actually have people on this website who think case law in an unrelated legal matter is more authoritative than the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, although you profess to have read the material, you don't seem to understand the plenary power environment of elections. Who do you think, OTHER THAN THE STATE LEGISLATURES, could declare an election UNLAWFUL due to fraud, and stay within the plenary powers given by the US Constitution. So let's dumb down, just for you. Your reference cites 2/3 of the Members present. That presumes that states that present Members-elect who are not qualified due to an UNLAWFUL election, DECLARED BY A STATE LEGISLATURE, is allowed to be seated in Congress, knowing they can be challenged by a quo warranto (by what authority?) motion. That leaves the possibility of fewer than 100 in the Senate, who has denied that representation in the past. And it gets dicey at this point; whether a Governor can appoint a Senator to an empty seat after an UNLAWFUL election is declared for that state. That is a legitimate question.
I would bet many Democrats vote for this as well. Who wants to go down with the president ? Pretty much everyone is going to care more about saving their own skin followed by loyalty to the party.
I would bet that that not a single one of them would.
Who wants to go down with the president ?
Without a lot of Democrat votes the President isn't going down.
Pretty much everyone is going to care more about saving their own skin followed by loyalty to the party.
In politics the first part generally depends on the second part.
The courts.
So let's dumb down, just for you.
You mean dumber than you've already made it? I'm not sure that's possible.
Except that there isn’t going to be a party left to support if they stick with Biden. For what possible reason ? Who isn’t going to disassociate themselves from crimes of this magnitude ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.