Replies

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.

Here's the Constitutional question:

What about the Electors?

If there was widespread voter fraud (and I think there was), it was for voting for partisan slates to the Electoral College, not directly for the President.

The Electors naturally voted for their party's candidate, no matter how legitimate or not they felt their selection was -- that's just how Democrats roll.

So, the Constitutional remedy was for the Electors to have honor and a conscience and vote for the person they really thought was the most qualified for the job. They didn't do that.

The first Constitutional backstop to a runaway Electoral College was the challenge to the Electors in Congress on January 6. That, too, didn't happen.

The second Constitutional backstop would be the Supreme Court, but even there I don't know what they could do post-election other than to rule that the rules for counting the votes must be those set by the state legislatures before they were changed by election officials and order them counted that way. This would have to have been done before the safe-harbor date on December 8, and that didn't happen, either.

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.

-PJ