Within two months, America will know whether or not Trump is returning to office

NOQ Report ^ | April 15, 2021 | Ethan Huff

[itsahoot]

Most of the threads on FR are from the MSM.

But here I get more than what they said. Plus IU don't have to watch or listen to them. Besides I know longer know what to think, the King its dead.

I notice all the bills that feckless RINOs are proposing or introducing now that they zero chance of passing into law. Easy to be conservative when the only thing you can accomplish is a few revenue raising soundbites.

[thecodont]

The only question I have is how long it will take for people to know they have been had

You think Biden will yell "Help Mr. Wizard!"?

[JCL3]

Every time I hear a complaint the complainer is reminded that they need to get used to it, this is the new administration’s way of doing things. Price of gas and groceries....

[mo]

thank you for your service

the coup 11/03 appears to have been successful....so far

[Georgia Girl 2]

Well you are right about the RINOs. They never fall out of character. The most predictable animal in the swamp. As soon as they fall out of power they become real paper tigers.

[Dr. Franklin]

Here's the Constitutional question: What about the Electors?

So we are back to Pence not insisting that the state legislature confirm that the electors certified by the governors were appointed as they directed, and therefore constitutionally appointed:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,"
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 2:
Thus, if the electors weren't appointed as directed, the courts can use quo warranto to annul and correct the results. Because that remedy was always there, the whole laches deflection was always erroneous, and a cop out.

So, how does a writ of quo warranto fit into this scheme, where three Constitutional gates were already passed unchecked? The Electoral College and Congressional/Judicial Review are supreme law of the land, but quo warranto is not. It might work for offices created by Congress, but not for Constitutionally defined offices that are supreme.

See above. You argue because the quo warranto mechanism isn't written in black and white in the Constitution that it is unconstitutional. Well, the whole process of objecting to electors isn't in the Constitution either. When it becomes plainly obvious that the government itself is illegitimate, including some who certified Biden's presidency, do you really think that the judges will just say, tough nuggies, and wait for the next election to fix things? That causes a crisis of the lack of consent of the governed, and could easily lead to all kinds of chaos, including the Second Amendment remedy.

I should expect when faced with that issue, the good judges will follow CJ Marshall's maxim, "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." That's what I would do if I were the judge. If the SCOTUS can invent other rights, I don't see why it can't recognize the statutory remedy enacted by Congress for fraudulent elections and certifications. I think people would welcome that remedy. The courts can restore their now blemished performance defending a Republican form of government.

[Political Junkie Too]

I have come to believe that you are a dishonest debater. I have to believe that know exactly what I wrote and are deceitfully twisting my words.

1. I never mentioned Pence, so there is no "back to Pence." I mentioned congress' enumerated power, backed up by US Code, to challenge the selection of electors.

Plus, I mentioned it as the second check of three. You're the one who wants to make it the only thing.

2. I didn't say that because quo warranto was not in the Constitution that it was unconstitutional. I said that it was inferior to Supreme law of the land.

I said that the Supreme Court could have ruled that the laws in place by the legislature should be enforced. Call that quo warranto if you want, but I did say that SCOTUS could have required the counts to comply with legislative law in place at the time.

The offices created by the Articles of the Constitution are Supreme law of the land, including the Electoral College. The sections related to their selection and removal are Supreme law of the land, and everything else is inferior law. I said that quo warranto is inferior law as pertains to the Constitutional offices.

-PJ

[Vermont Lt]

I know the answer....but I don’t think some folks are ready for the answer.

(Spoiler Alert: No.)

[Vermont Lt]

The states certified the election. They cannot undo that. At least there is not constitutional mechanism for that.

Trump coming back is not going to happen.

[Vermont Lt]

You mean 1/20/25. He would win the election in November. But he would not be back until the next year.

[redgolum]

Exactly.

No mechanism forward.

Now, I love barracks lawyer antics as much as the next, but reality intrudes at some point

[Dr. Franklin]

I know the answer....but I don’t think some folks are ready for the answer.
(Spoiler Alert: No.)

My prediction is that Obama, the corrupt Chicago pol, did it. He screwed Bernie over twice, and manipulated all of this. Who else thought the Ho was presidential? I suspect that he wants to be named to SCOTUS, because he claimed to be constitutional law professor, like William Howard Taft.

[Dr. Franklin]

Well you can believe anything you want. It appears you do. When you start with false premises, no one is obligated to accept them. I’m sorry you think that is “deceitful”, but hey, no need to comment on my threads.

[Political Junkie Too]

The false premise being that quo warranto can remove a sitting President and return his predecessor to office?

-PJ

[Dr. Franklin]

The false premise being that quo warranto can remove a sitting President and return his predecessor to office? -PJ

In this case, the false premise is that a federal court in DC, and the appellate courts above, don't have the constitutional power to determine their own jurisdiction once granted subject matter jurisdiction over federal questions by the Congress.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think that's an entirely different question, a question worth discussing, but I don't see the tie back to our conversation started in my response to your post #80.

In post #80, you referred to the "guarantee" clause which guaranteed to the states a republican form of government. If your assertion was that a stolen election gained by votes counted via illegally altered laws is a violation of a representative state government and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, I have no quarrel with that and suggested what SCOTUS should do in response in my initial post #119, which I find to be a proper Constitutional response.

If your assertion is that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to cite a concept like quo warranto to simply summarily disregard the election results and name a true winner, and then order the dismantling of the current administration and the installation of a new one, I don't see how that can be constitutional.

First, I don't think that separation of powers gives the Supreme Court the authority to make that kind of an order on the Executive Branch. They can rule on the laws as passed by Congress, they can rule on the execution of laws as administered by the Executive Branch, but they can't order Congress to pass a law and they can't order the Executive to take an action.

Second, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Article III of the Constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Since a state such as Pennsylvania was a party in their suit over the illegal alteration of laws passed by their legislature, SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction. Their actions would be limited to the state, not the Executive branch of the federal government. SCOTUS should have ordered the state to recount the votes using the rules in place as passed by the legislature, and disregard any rules put in place by election officials.

In the case brought by the Attorneys General of several other states arguing that the few states that illegally altered their election laws tainted the outcomes for all the states, the same would apply: SCOTUS should rule that all of the states must count their votes using the rules put in place before the election by the respective state legislatures. They can't rule that the suing states are correct and the other candidate should be installed into office. A ruling such as that would bypass the Electoral College, which is also a representative body guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV which you cited in post #80.

Third, the time for SCOTUS to act was before the safe-harbor date for the Electoral College. SCOTUS declined to hear the challenges before the election, and again after the election. If we are to discuss original jurisdiction, along with that comes a discussion on whether SCOTUS can be compelled to hear a case.

What's the point of original jurisdiction if SCOTUS can reject it? Lower courts can't reject hearing a case brought to it by prosecutors, so why can SCOTUS? Obviously, such a compulsion from the Executive (Trump) would have been "yes," while Congress would have been split. Would the states have a say in it? Should a majority of state legislatures not parties to the case be allowed to pass resolutions requiring SCOTUS to take an original jurisdiction case? Should SCOTUS be unilaterally required to hear an original jurisdiction case? That would take an amendment to the Constitution to make happen, and there would have to be some threshold against nuisance cases (yes, even from states).

-PJ

[AppyPappy]

I get the feeling pushing this whole “Trump is coming back” scenario is just a cash cow

[Freedom56v2]

Is Mike Lindell a nut job too?

[Antoninus]

It’s always only two months away...

[Luke21]

How do we take back the country with fixed elections and how do we impeach anybody with McCarthy and McConnell in charge?