Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Franklin

“The constitution doesn’t provide for a lot things, like popular election of the president”

I think you mean popular election of Senators, since we don’t have popular election of the President. But the Constitution of course does provide for the popular election of Senators, in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

“The constitution puts few limits on the power of Congress to pass a law like the quo warranto statute”

Perhaps for ordinary federal officials, but that simply isn’t true when it comes to the President. The Constitution specifies that there are only 2 methods to remove a sitting president, which means that any additional methods must be added through the amendment process, just as the 25th amendment process was added. If what you were asserting were actually true, then Congress could have just passed a regular law to enable removal of an impaired President, but they could not do that, because it would be unconstitutional, just as your “quo warranto” fantasy is.


73 posted on 04/15/2021 10:17:54 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
I think you mean popular election of Senators, since we don’t have popular election of the President. But the Constitution of course does provide for the popular election of Senators, in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

No, I meant what I wrote, “The constitution doesn’t provide for a lot things, like popular election of the president”

Perhaps for ordinary federal officials, but that simply isn’t true when it comes to the President. The Constitution specifies that there are only 2 methods to remove a sitting president, which means that any additional methods must be added through the amendment process, just as the 25th amendment process was added. If what you were asserting were actually true, then Congress could have just passed a regular law to enable removal of an impaired President, but they could not do that, because it would be unconstitutional, just as your “quo warranto” fantasy is.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4

The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution is not a fantasy. Either our judges will defend the Republic and a republican form of government or they will not, and the American people must address the issue, as the nation was founded. The Guarantee Clause is more than enough constitutional basis to void a fraudulent election, particularly one with foreign actors, which makes upholding that fraud treason since people have died from the biological attacks.
80 posted on 04/15/2021 11:13:06 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson