We the People of the United States Request President Trump Invoke Insurrection Act to Take Back Our Republic

White House ^ | December 13,2020 | White House

[eastsider]

We The People of The United States (WTPTUS), wish to announce that we are tired of being betrayed by our Governors, Mayors, Legislators, Judges, Attorney Generals who refuse to honor their Oaths of Office to uphold the Constitution and Represent their Constituents as they swore to do when they took office.

The loss of our Constitutional Rights (free speech) and the rampant election/voter fraud left unremedied by all legal channels, became the last straw, in a long train of abuses.

WTPTUS request that President Trump, our Duly Elected President, by an overwhelming majority of LEGAL Votes, invoke the Insurrection Act and all emergency powers available to him including the Military to take back control of Our Country and restore the Rule of Law our Constitution and our Republic.

[HotHunt]

1. Now you're playing word games. For the second time, I never said close down the courts or Congress. You're the one who suggested it. The rewritten act says he doesn't need the courts or Congress' permission to do what he wants to do under the rewritten law. The original act did.

2. Another hypothetical question. But "If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops." If that's not good enough for you, then you'll have to go ask Trump himself.

3. Again, you're playing word games. You're trying to get me to agree with your hypotheticals, when I never said such a thing.

The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.

Stop putting words in my mouth. If you don't like my answers to your questions, then that's just too bad. Not once have you come up with a solution yourself. Only to counteract what the newly re-written Insurrection Act provides. If you don't agree with that, then take it up with the Congress because they are the ones who bestowed the authorities and responsibilities onto the president.

That's it for me tonight.

[MalPearce]

>> And to your final point, the Insurrection Act may have originally been about insurgencies, but is has been updated and rewritten for the 21st century and it has broaden the definition of what the law covers.

>> The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

Really?

A President can unilaterally decide there are conspiracies against him, unilaterally say these conspiracies hurt the people, send in the troops to find the “conspirators”, and lock up anybody in the legislature or judiciary who opposes that overreach...

You know, the Queen of England has a similar constitutional power. If the fate of Britain itself is at stake, the monarch can refuse to give Royal Assent. That is, in purest terms, a limited power of veto. But the allegiance of the military is to the Crown.

This power hasn’t been used since the days of Queen Anne. Because its use would overturn all regular governance, it would immediately terminate the institution of the head of state, and it would turn the UK (temporarily) into a “failed state”.

I’m sorry, but exactly the same consequence would follow if the wishes expressed by that petition are borne out by action. Invoking those powers will not “restore” the dying Republic or secure the Presidency - more likely it’ll establish the precedent that it’s okay for ANY first term President to order the military to overturn any election result and suppress the opposition.

There’d never ever be another one-term presidency ever again - because every losing President would have an automatic right to overturn the result through the courts, and if that doesn’t work just cry CONSPIRACY! and have the military take over. There really could be a conspiracy, but because of the current situation the last thing people who support the President want is any kind of hurdle where the outgoing POTUS has to prove there really is a constituency, to a court.

Ergo, once Trump does it you could one day end up with a “moderate” left wing President who waits until after the primaries to go full tilt commie, manufactures a conspiracy before voting opens, and without any safeguards use their own advance prediction of their imminent loss as the pretext to declare a Conservative win null and void. And if you don’t like it... Martial Law.

Is THAT the Republic you’re after?

[HotHunt]

Iffa, coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I didn't write the law. Congress did. Take it up with them.

I do know this. I'm tired of our side getting the short end of the stick every single time because we stand around fretting over whether we're doing the right thing or not and end up doing nothing because people like you are concerned if that's the kind of Republic we want. We won't have a Republic at all of Trump doesn't do something drastic to save it.

I suspect the Republic is already close to there with the graft and corruption of the democRATS, who are owned lock stop and barrel by the Chinese Communist Party.

While at the same time, Communist China has slipped us mickey in the form of a virus that has crippled our country and its economy and then in cahoots with the democRATS have managed to steal our national election from Trump and give it to a bumbling idiot like Biden through massive election fraud, and are about to assume control of our sovereign nation through their puppet, Joe Biden, without ever having fired a shot.

Trump needs to do what needs to be done to save his presidency from the coconspirators of a coup d'état and save the Republic from being controlled by the CCP.

Are we doing the "right" thing? It won't matter of he doesn't put a stop to this blatant theft of his second term and the control of the country by a communist enemy.

[MalPearce]

"I'm tired of our side getting the short end of the stick every single time".

Ah, yes. But if we will insist on kicking ourselves in the nuts every time we do something, that's not exactly better. I give you The Politician's Syllogism.

In context: the originating scene from Yes Prime Minister

"we stand around fretting over whether we're doing the right thing or not"

(sigh) No, the absolute polar reverse is true. We are automatically convinced "the right thing" is defined entirely by what sounds like the kind of thing a Conservative would say instead of what'll actually frickin' work.This criticism is not an exercise in defeatism, or questioning faith - it's a cry out for us to start using winning tactics and exercising some plain common sense instead of treating this with all the oversimplicity of a schoolyard punch-up.

If the RATS have pulled off the greatest steal of all time right under our noses and totally covered EVERY conceivable angle that POTUS could exercise to bust the steal, it means THE RATS ARE UTTERLY FORENSIC and are willing to be complex and self-critical when working out their plays, in a way that we never, never allow anybody on our side to be. The second someone on the right shoots a big hole in a conservative plan, they're treated like they've farted in a lift - but oftentimes the plan fails because of the big hole in it and we shot the messenger instead of dealing with it.

90% of Lefties are not stocking up their gun cupboards in fear of what we're doing - if they're buying anything at all, they're buying deckchairs and popcorn in order to watch us make fools of ourselves, go comically purple in rage, and start eliminating each other in "friendly fire" exercises.

We should've been worrying YEARS AGO about the future of rugged individualism and a healthy disrespect / distrust of authority, while empowering Corporate America to run things, in the context of globalism and the emerging power of China, Russia, India and Brazil. We have been sleepwalking for so long (even through periods of massive offshoring and asset stripping) while obsessing over Woke Nonsense distraction fluff, we've let almost all our big industries end up sponsored by corporations in Russia and the Far East.

By the time Trump reacted to Huawei, half our security infrastructure was open to hackers. But the 80s film War Games was actually describing a TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE scenario. Teenage Brits can STILL hack into the US military with almost no expertise. What have our republican and conservative spokespersons been doing about it? NOTHING. They were far too busy indulging in moral panics and obsessing about making America "more like the Waltons and less like The Simpsons" to give a crap about things like national security.

It baffles me that we're still in "Something must be done, this is something, so we must do this" mode to the extent of even entertaining a plan that far from saving the Republic from being controlled by the CCP, will guarantee that a future RAT President will have complete sole authority to welcome the CCP in at the end of their first term.

[DoodleDawg]

1. Now you're playing word games. For the second time, I never said close down the courts or Congress. You're the one who suggested it. The rewritten act says he doesn't need the courts or Congress' permission to do what he wants to do under the rewritten law. The original act did.

If you are saying that the president can act unrestrained by Congress or the courts then for all practical purposes you have shut both down or frozen them out or made them irrelevant. Any way you want to phrase it there is nothing in the Constitution that allows that.

2. Another hypothetical question. But "If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops." If that's not good enough for you, then you'll have to go ask Trump himself.

The law states: "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion." Where is the unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages? Where is the rebellion? Where is it impracticable for local authorities to enforce the law?

The authority is vested solely in the President.

Not really, no. 10 U.S. Code § 251 says that the president can send in troops "upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened." No president can act on his own, unencumbered by the Constitution, and without Congressional or judicial oversight.

[MalPearce]

> No president can act on his own, unencumbered by the Constitution, and without Congressional or judicial oversight.

Unless every legal avenue to overturn the alleged Biden victory fails and the President attempts precisely what’s being suggested.

Another UK equivalent is the Parliament Act brought in by an amoral government. It allows a Prime Minister with a strong majority to attempt to pass legislation despite repeatedly being told that his action is anticonstitutional, illegal, immoral and unenforceable.

If all the other checks and balances push back, but the PM has supreme dominance over the Party, the Parliament Act allows the Prime Minister to bulldoze it through.

We all know that the only reason this doesn’t automatically create an electoral dictatorship is we don’t have a leadership with that enough moral authority or ambition to abuse that power to its fullest extent.

All executive override powers can serve two use cases: establishing an electoral dictatorship, or dealing with a genuine state of emergency. In the latter scenario, the executor of the power must exercise restraint and relinquish the power as soon as the immediate require has been satisfied. If they do not, you become a dictatorship by default.

[right way right]

I think you miss-took my point.
Biden shall be denied office by whatever means it take.

[Wpin]

My apologies...glad you are patriotic!

[DoodleDawg]

All executive override powers can serve two use cases: establishing an electoral dictatorship, or dealing with a genuine state of emergency. In the latter scenario, the executor of the power must exercise restraint and relinquish the power as soon as the immediate require has been satisfied. If they do not, you become a dictatorship by default.

So when will the immediate require be satisfied in this case?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Any person endorsing in any way socialism or communism within U.S. territories...

First, defiine "socialism." There are some who say that public roads, trash pickup, and fire departments are socialism.

[MalPearce]

If I were President Trump I would not wait till Inauguration Day.

I would execute the power now, order the seizure of all counting machines, order hand recounts in the contested states, release the evidence on the vulnerabilities exposed in the voting machines to every reputable white HAT outfit, CSIRT and SECOPS in the USA. Send each one a machine. Bug bounty. Armed forces used to secure these agencies and monitor the investigations. Limited collaboration, Double blind approaches. No penalty for finding nothing - it’s about getting the truth not biasing the investigation.

As soon as the examination is complete, resign from the Presidency and restore civilian authority.

If anything - anything is confirmed, the GOP will either be forced to act or maintain its blind eye - no matter what they do the American people will know the President was vindicated not by xrappy Court cases or QAnon conspiracies but by objective hard proof from dozens of entirely independent cyber security professionals.

Any firm that fails to do the job or finds nothing wrong while it’s competitors are finding flaws and exploits galore will be punished by their own clients.

[conservativeimage]

First, defiine "socialism."

A community lives next to each other. Communism lives OFF OF each other. Is it voluntary or mandatory charity? How’s that for starters?

[DoodleDawg]

As soon as the examination is complete, resign from the Presidency and restore civilian authority.

If you're immediately going to resign then what's the purpose of the martial law?

[MalPearce]

To get to the truth, in a way that apathetic citizens, neutrals and maybe even RINO and Never Trump voters can get on board with.

The point of the exercise is to save the Republic and drain the swamp; that mission is a bit more complicated than forcing Trump back into power at gunpoint and telling the other 125 million Americans who could care less about Trump to just suck it up.

T You’re welcome to try it but it WILL result in an even bigger backlash against conservatism in the end.

It’s almost as if you haven’t noticed that even if Trump had won with 90 million votes and every single one of those had been out of love for the guy rather than a Never Biden vote thru gritted teeth, that figure wil have DROPPED since the election.

Because a lot of people who did support Trump in the election and don’t want Biden to be President now think we’re all the victim of a massive fake news grift.

This is because practically every world leader and his dog - with the exception of the leaders of a handful of banana republics and dictatorships - reckon the “evidence” of fraud is actually being manufactured by people who are either being paid by Trump to say it, or are drunk on kool aid and grabbing their ten minutes of fame.

And Trump is famed the world over for being a man who is so hostile to losing that he once sued his own failing casino to stop using his name - they say that even we know Trump has ALWAYS been a massive narcissist so he’s got decades of previous. He’s never done a thing in his pre-political life that wasn’t about himself.

That is why the best thing Trump could do is prove beyond any doubt that he isn’t doing all of this for himself. And the worst thing he could do is get back in the White House, go on a revenge spree, and tweet like crazy that all the people love him.

[DoodleDawg]

To get to the truth, in a way that apathetic citizens, neutrals and maybe even RINO and Never Trump voters can get on board with.

Run a second election, unsanctioned by the Constitution, under martial law and military control, run by the Trump administration, and you think people are going to believe the results? Really? All you're going to do is flip the current picture. Right now Biden is the declared winner and half the country believes the election was rigged. Under your scenario Trump will be the winner and the other half the country will believe the election was rigged. What have you gained other than keep Trump in office, and if you're going to resort to martial law you don't need an election to do that.

[MalPearce]

Run the election after Trump has stepped down then.

And you’re wearing rose tinted glasses if you think the split is half and half. A third at best are 100% convinced Biden stole the election AND are sufficiently motivated to see this through, a third are ambivalent / just want it to be over, and a third are convinced Trump is the one subverting democracy.

If you can’t bring that middle third over, Trump will NOT accepted by anybody outside his entrenched loyal support base and AT BEST his second term will be the lamest duck in history.

[MalPearce]

If anyone thinks my point is invalid somehow...

A White House petition on the side of POTUS hasn’t even reached 7425 signatures yet. Its target is six figures. The same petition site has over 144,000 signatures for Trump to resign and release his tax returns. But a far larger response simply demands recounts or audits.

The problem with all petitions like these is self selection. Only people who are massively committed to a subject tend to sign. From what I can see, truth and fairness is attracting more signatures than tribal causes.

I believe the number of voting age citizens is estimated to be 253.7 million.

So less than 4% of the voting age American population can be arsed to even put their name to a petition that they can sign for free, to explicitly support Trump OR Biden. Perhaps up to 4% have effectively said, “give us an honest recount and we’ll abide by the result.”

Nobody knows how the other 92% of people who don’t respond to petitions are split across those 3 camps.

I’d love to see some evidence that everybody who voted Trump in November is still on his side. It’d be awesome if some Biden voters or folks that didn’t vote are now on our side.

At a push, if I cook the numbers massively in his favor and assume everyone prepared to sign a petition questioning the Biden win is willing to take up arms to defend, POTUS, I estimate POTUS can count on maybe 6% of the adult population of the USA if he invokes sedition, EO, or ML.

It’s not knowing where the allegiances and appetites of the other 94% that bothers me most.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A community lives next to each other. Communism lives OFF OF each other.

Nice catchphrase, but essentially useless as a definition.

Is it voluntary or mandatory charity? How’s that for starters?

Is taking my tax money to build a road or fund a police department voluntary or mandatory?

The problem is defining where community becomes communism and where society becomes socialist.