Posted on 12/04/2020 5:52:16 PM PST by kellymcneill
I do not believe the Insurrection Act strips the House of the ability to impeach, nor the Senate to convict. Someone suggested it does.
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I’m certainly quite able! be wrong but I do not think President Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act.
Appreciate your response.
I guess I was under the misguided notion that since SCOTUS stepped in for FL 2000 (a single state, why a federal issue?), under the 14th (”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”) that this would be entirely applicable in a situation where we have multiple states (thus, a federal issue?) in question. If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines? Furthermore, it’d seem that voting by absentee ballots vs. mail-ins vs. in person with varying degrees of authentication (to the extent any exists) across a single state would be violations of the 14th.
Just saying; thanks again.
No of course not but it makes a great argument.
In effect if he expires before being sworn, inaugurated, he is not President and the person receiving the second most votes for the presidency in the electoral college is in fact elected to the office..
If FL could not guarantee its citizens equal protection in 2000, why does this not apply now across state lines
This makes perfect sense.
I’m betting that the new USSC members who were personally involved in the 2000 election case will help swing any decisions toward Trump. I’m not ashamed of that naked partisanship on MY part either, as that as why each side fights so hard for their respective appointments. My concern, is that they will over-correct in an attempt to appear objective, as Roberts is at best already known for.
“if you prove something after the electoral college votes... then it’s too late because the electoral college has already voted”
That’s patently wrong... simply incorrect.
Include in that... that the law always assumes correctness in result... unless there’s a reason to find that what was assumed to be correct... was instead wrongly assumed ? That might often happen on appeal, with either findings or error in fact or in law... or simply as a result of additional information emerging, that had been wrongly withheld ?
Didn’t something like that happen to Gen. Flynn ?
An illegally won result, like any other fraud... isn’t made somehow sacrosanct only because a fraud being practiced succeeded... for a time. Generally, in those instances, what you find is that the error in assumption of correctness could not occur... without some misrepresentation.
Judges tend to be unforgiving of frauds on the court.
Didn’t Alito already mention, to PA, that it the plain text of the Constitution requires it is legislatures and not state elections officials that define the “manner” of holding elections ? And, you think he’s simply ignoring it and ruling against Trump when they poke him in the eye ?
I also disagree with you re Powell’s efficacy... but might be seeing designs in her efforts that you are not seeing ?
“If her case isn’t resolved by the time the EC votes, it’ll be dismissed as moot. “
That’s possible... but not necessarily the case.
It she proves the EC is improperly constituted... it ceases to be the EC... when a judge rules that it is not.
What you are discussing is not the requirements of law... but those of tradition, or custom... that presume no issue in law exists.
If “Russian interference” in the 2016 election was enough to remove Trump because of it, after the fact, in spite of his having been proven to have played no role in it ? That makes it clear enough that there IS NO DEADLINE re countering the impact of fraud in elections ? The one that does exist... as a practical matter... until you gin up the next round of impeachment trials... is the closure of process with the taking of office being allowed by a sufficient number to enable its legitimacy.
Assume a perfectly split vote... and two Presidents holding dueling inaugurations ? But, that can’t happen, right ?
Bellagio is correct this was about how the election could be conducted as with the vote by mail. Bush /Gore was about how to count the votes they didn’t question the validity of the election itself
The ONLY fixed date is January 20 all other dates can be changed
Thanks again.
I imagine that whether or not the court is playing politics, they ought to be held to what is now precedent and surely one way to find out is for the suits I mentioned to be filed. It seems to me (not a lawyer) that if the 14th amendment applied then it must apply now, and going forward, whatever decision is made, it may help to prevent fraudulent elections to the level we are witnessing now. Thanks again.
This wanders a bit from yours... but, thanks for getting me going... as where it leads is useful:
What the law provides doesn’t matter ?
That’s seen as “true” in at least two ways, three, really, with two of the three being true in fact.
First, if the what the law provides is wrongly understood ? That’s the game Democrats often play... deliberately misunderstanding the law, while testing its limits to see what Republicans will let them get away with. Turns out that usually means they’re allowed to get away with anything they want badly enough to try cheating at. Until Trump.
But, where that runs into difficulty is when, for instance, the electors are wrongly chosen... in violation of the law... and then declared rightly chosen... and advanced as legitimate. In the current instance, the entire election was held outside the law. The court would be right to find that no election was held in PA... because the mimic in the process that was conducted... doesn’t meet the requirements the law imposes to be considered an election under the law.
If there was no election... how can there be electors ? If there were no electors... they can’t vote as electors ?
The “deadline” has nothing to with it then ? Then they don’t squirt past the deadline and say “whew, snuck that one past ‘em” and get away with it ? Because, if they were fraudulently chosen... before the deadline... then they NEVER WERE electors ? And, the act of advancing them knowingly, in spite of the fraud... is perjury, at least ?
But, committing the perjury... doesn’t make a non-election into an election... or non-electors into electors ?
From there... you can “what if” what happens depending on what the SCOTUS finds when it looks at the issues ?
Even it you don’t start with the expectation that precedent is not limiting... that leaves a wide field.
Even if it were true (an error) that there was no precedent to consider re the inviolability of the curtain drawn by a “safe harbor” provision in a law... that appears it doesn’t actually apply in the case of a non-action taken, more when the non-action asserts the fact of the error being addressed and left unresolved. That’s a wrinkle that is still not properly employed if used in an attempt to dodge the parallel error in the incorrect claim re the lack of relevant precedent... when fraud seeks to avoid the operation of the law by subverting the legitimate process.
A relevant question then, might be... are there any other circumstances, conditions precedent, that might exist that would alter the function of the clock in legal proceedings ?
Then, of course, when facing an unprecedented situation... it is error to assume precedent is obviously controlling.
Beyond deliberate violations of law, deliberate sleights of hand in misdirection relative to what the law is, errors in interpretation of the law by various others, and error entrained in law that is inherently unconstitutional...
The Constitution, also, of course, provides for a method of determining a case when what the law provides... is wrong.
Then,there are other elements to consider, such as motive ?
Willingness of some to break the law is undisputed.
Errors of public officials... undertaken because of a gross misunderstanding of their legitimate role and the nature of their obligations in constitutional context ?
The biggest issue is that of the illusion that controls this country... crafted around the divide between the importance of the appearance of legitimacy in elections... and the much greater importance of safe0guarding the fact of it.
The election frauds are enabled, by both parties, under the false rubric of it being critically necessary to tolerate the fraud, because exposing it would lead to a loss of confidence in elections. And, confidence (the heart of every con game) is considered more important to sustain than the fact of legitimacy.
The only way to restore legitimacy... is to restore it in fact... while DESTROYING the argument that fraud must be tolerated to sustain the ILLUSION of legitimacy.
In the current case... the THREE arguments are... 1.) the law is being violated, 2.) the law being applied isn’t “the law” as sleights of hand operate misdirection to apply “law” that isn’t the law, and 3.) some elements of laws properly enabled... violate the Constitution.
Actually solving the problem requires adding to that, now, a fourth item... that 4.) a systemic fraud is practiced in wrongly yet broadly advocating to sustain extant frauds, even covering them up as a necessary element, which operates by fostering the belief that the illusion of legitimacy where it is in fact lacking... is more important to sustain than the fact.
The court must EXPOSE that argument... and obliterate it.
Sneaking past the “safe harbor” deadline... cannot be made to work in validating “something someone made up” as having the same force of law as real law... only because it was more convenient for some actors to ignore that their actions weren’t legitimate ? This case potentially becomes a VERY FUNDAMENTAL showdown between those different views of the law: The liberal view that says the law (as the Constitution) is “malleable” to allow it being interpreted however you want... as long as a pretense of legitimacy is sustained... and the conservative view that says the law... actually means something... and the requirement is substantive, not theater enabling a con game.
Courts are generally reluctant to engage in deciding political matters... for good reason. When the DOJ, perhaps at the heart of theater engaged in enforcing the “illusion” of legitimacy, says “its a civil matter”... does that make it so ? When does the criminality become so excessive that it can’t possibly be seen as “a political matter” rather than flagrant crime ?
When does an interest in having elections be viewed as legitimate... conflict with an actual requirement under law and the Constitution to tell the truth... and ensure elections ACTUALLY HAVE integrity... instead of only appearing legitimate in result of a conspiracy of silence ?
Perhaps we’ll find out in 2020 ?
While the Constitution is not a suicide pact... neither is the law properly purposed as the necessary legal enabling element when wrongful legislation is making it a suicide pact... only to sustain the illusion that it really matters.
If the SCOTUS fails to address the “minor” issue of the appearance versus the reality of legitimacy... and fail to obliterate the argument that appearances matter more than the substance... they will have missed the heart of the matter entirely.
Those other dates other then January 20 are not law those are recommended days that we've lived up to.
What you're missing is this 45 days after the election (December 18th) on foreign interference in our elections will be reported on by DNI and DHS.
Also according to Sara Carter Durham is now looking into post 2020 election.
Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election signed on -- September 12, 2018
"Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/
What i find most interesting in all this. The Kraken report which is very accurate on foreign interference they can't get a judge to listen to them. This shows a major problem with our court system. Though they do need the Kraken to be heard at a higher court which that is where they're taking it. It will likely take longer then the 18th this month.
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.