Posted on 12/11/2020 10:10:47 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012
Of course they won't reverse the election. That's not what they do.
But this a constitutional case where they could rule that the existing certified electors are tainted because they were selected by a process that violated the state's election laws and, in turn, the US Constitution.
That would require each state's legislature to select a new slate of electors, different from the ones certified from the tainted elections. Or not.
There are 62 electoral votes between the four defendant states. If all four states selected new electors, that would be enough to put either Trump or Biden over the 270 finish line. If the legislatures came up with none or only part of the total electors, then there may or may not be enough votes to to give one of the candidates 270, depending on the number of electors they picked.
If there weren't enough electors selected to give either of the candidates the win or there was a tie at 270 each, then the whole mess would go to the state delegations in the House to finally decide the race. Each state delegation in the House gets one vote and currently, the Republicans, and therefore by extension, have the majority of the delegations Trump would win.
So, yes, I agree, the USSC won't reverse the election. But their ruling and the resulting machinations of the state legislatures and/or the House, could very well reverse the election. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
“But their ruling and the resulting machinations of the state legislatures and/or the House, could very well reverse the election.”
Not a chance. Sad, but true.
You have no basis for making a statement with the absolute negative certainty that you did, "not a chance", without a reason.
Why is that?
"....Martial law can be imposed when civil rule fails, temporarily being replaced with military authority in a time of crisis. Though rare, there have been a number of notable U.S. cases where martial law came into play, including in times of war, natural disaster and civic dispute...."
"....While no precise definition of martial law exists, a precedent for it exists wherein, “certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of habeas corpus [the right to a trial before imprisonment] may be suspended..."
"....Martial law may be declared by both the president and by Congress. State officials may also declare martial law, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, however, 'their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court'...."
"....Throughout the course of U.S. history, federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times...."
More information at source link:
I was referring to specifically the tweet that General Flynn re-tweeted.
If President Trump “invokes” martial law under those circumstances, I believe the House would move to impeach and the Senate to convict.
What was the context? Maybe you could share it with me.
Thanks.
And the state militias will take care of it then...
Civil dispute has already started... Antifa is torching villages and setting up autonomous zones
It was the tweet by We The People that General Flynn re-tweeted. This occurred about 7-10 days ago, maybe?
Gotcha. Thanks.
When she snapped to with the George Floyd line of questioning. She spewed out the obligatory “woke” response that she was weeping for the saintly St. George of Kirby before there has even been a trial and accepting the democrat lies. I don’t trust her one bit.
.... I just read. ALL THREE of Trump’s judges refused to hear the Texas case....
they are all swamp creatures and will do as they are commanded to do to protect the DC elites.
Talk about being bummed.
Seems that way...more doors getting slammed in our face before we can get a foot in the door.
Seems like the entire universe of opposition forces are arrayed against him, except his supporters. He is doing this alone.
I feel compelled to stick with him because he will never give up. Neither will I.
But boy am I bummed.
“You have no basis for making a statement with the absolute negative certainty that you did, “not a chance”, without a reason. Why is that?”
Because there are not enough legislatures who would do what you suggest. Throw it to the HoR? Trump would never get a majority of states to re-elect him. Politicians are the most selfish of human creatures, and — with the rarest of exceptions — they will always put themselves and their own interests ahead of their constituents. Just think: Why do so many barely-sentient miscreants fight like hell to get elected to public office? For one simple reason: They seek to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.
Mark Twain had it right: “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” I posit that Twain was only partially right, because his criticism would apply to politicians in general.
I am just an eternal optimist. Without optimism there is no hope. Without hope, what's the point?
But now that the SC has declined to hear Texas's lawsuit, we're down to slim and none.
I still think Trump can pull this out of the bag. Why? Because he says he will and he is the only person in power I believe anymore. The rest of them are just as you describe.
Boy, am I bummed, just like many others are right now.
Thanks for responding.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
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.