Posted on 07/09/2022 7:22:30 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
Which would be what in keeping with the Constitution?
It's hard to believe any rational person would think that Trump could be reinstated to the presidency.
“It’s hard to believe any rational person would think that Trump could be reinstated to the presidency.”
In today’s Satan-ruled world, you are correct. Sadly.
Thirty years ago, when most people attended church, and character and ethics were more prevalent, not true. Then, in a more sane world, “any rational person” believed that thieves and cheaters should have their ill-gotten gains confiscated, and restitution should be made to the victims.
“Fraud vitiates everything.” SCOTUS, 1878
Actually, you seem out of sorts a bit. You’ve made several comments about how there is no 2022 or 2024 if 2020 is not fixed. Who knows what you mean by fixed. Maybe the “reinstatement” of President Trump? Not going to happen.
But that hack job Patel Patriot is probably sweating. He’s been pushing devolution, and it’s going to go… nowhere. Because President Trump is not a tyrant, to the disappointment of some who so desperately want him to be.
Actually I’m more hopeful now than I have been in months. There is a lot going on that points to the deep state in a final desperate struggle to hang on. I think this may well be over before the midterms. 😉
538 people in the several states voted that day who were said by officials in those states to be legitimate POTUS and VPOTUS electors.
The tally of that state-based vote was determined on Jan Six. The sitting VPOTUS certified the tally, out went the Bad Orange Man, and in went Lesco Brandon.
What is your point, please.
I very much want to make that bet.
This sounds similar to the Obamacare switcheroo (that is, POTUS and Congress calling something a penalty not a tax to get the statute passed, then SCOUTS calling it a tax not a penalty to allow the statute to pass muster under the Commerce Clause and not be deemed unconstitutional):
__________
The Tiny Distinction That Saved Obamacare: Why the Penalty Is a Tax
By Derek Thompson
JUNE 28, 2012
What’s in a name? That which we call a health insurance penalty would by any other name raise money, John Roberts concluded. Even if you can’t regulate the lack of commerce, you can always tax it.
robertsmoderate.banner.reuters.jpg
Reuters
In the two years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, the small penalty for those who don’t buy health insurance had been one of the least-discussed elements of the law. The famous insurance regulations? They were the administration’s darlings. The expensive subsidies for low-income families and Medicaid expansion? Those were the conservatives’ and deficit hawks’ biggest nightmare. And the individual mandate? That was the keystone of controversy.
But this morning, when the Supreme Court upheld the ACA, it was the often-ignored penalty that played a leading role in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion. Because the small fee “looks like a tax,” he wrote, the individual mandate could stand on the basis of Congress’ broad power to tax.
But does that make any sense? How can a penalty also be a tax?
It can’t.
That was the simple, stark conclusion from the dissenting Justices: Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas. “We have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax,” they wrote. “We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax.” The two are mutually exclusive, they said.
Well him getting less than two terms, is that in keeping with
the Constitution of the United States?
Because of chicanery I submit Trump, the nation, and the
Constitution of the United States have been short changed.
I would suggest a special one/of fix to remedy that.
Stealing elections doesn’t exactly fit within the confines
of the Constitution of the United States either.
At least a one/of fix wouldn’t be unConstitutional if it
was debated and passed by Congress.
It wasn’t until after F. D. Roosevelt that action was
taken to limit presidents to two terms. It didn’t limit
them to 1.5 terms.
Unfortunately you need 34 states to ratify and I just don't see where they come from.
No, because it would not be changing the Constitution.
It would be a one time only fix to account for a massive
criminal act.
The Constitution would remain the same. Thus ratification
would not be required. Further, there are times when it
would seem something needed to be ratified, when it really
doesn’t.
For instance, the number of Judges on the Supreme Court
can be changed without ratification. (I’m going by what
I recently read, so if that was correct, this observation
would be legit, concerning SCOTUS judges)
Did the Democrats get ratification to limit Trump to one
term?
They did to get him two elections - 22nd Amendment.
No, they invalidated the second.
They did not get him two elections run by the rules and let
the chips fall where they will.
They pulled every trick in the book to deny him a second
honest election.
Yes, it would the Constitution says very specifically how a sitting president is removed. Claiming this is ‘fixing’ by going outside the Constitution, applying the ‘fix’ and now we’re back under the Constitution. Is like accepting one of Bill Clinton’s explanation of his Monica trysts as not being sex!
If the roles were reversed, the Democrats would be trying everything possible to get back in power, even if they knew they had high odds of winning and would most likely lose. They get the message out loud and clear.
But the fighting freepers sit back, watch and criticize any attempt of getting the word out. No wonder the Democrats have been so successful at taking this nation to the left.
If the Republicans get the House back, there should never be an end to the calls for election and voting reform. A lot of effort should be made to get Trump back in office and Biden and Harris thrown out, because the extreme matters determine the center. Democrats have used this tactic for years: haven’t we learned?
Well, Antifa had their way without our resistance, same with BLM.
This political cowardice, despite not having personal involvement as those other fights would have demanded, doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s sad.
If Trump is installed as president any time before January 20, 2025 then that is recognition that he was, in fact, the actual winner of the 2020 election. That would mean he had been elected twice, all that is allowed by the 22nd Amendment.
Quit all this fantasy crap, there is no mechanism to overturn a presidential election and reinstate a former president. It is not going to happen.
That isn’t going to happen either, more fantasy crap.
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.