The 2016 election must be nullified

[Zoonart]

After what we learned yesterday, is anyone unclear on what our demands must be? The 2016 election must be nullified- top to bottom...full stop.

Had the people known that the FBI and who knows what other agencies, were investigating the Trump campaign in July, the voters would have reacted differently. The press would have acted differently. The narrative would have changed and so would the outcome of the election that Hillary won by 3million votes anyway.

There is no constitutional remedy for this problem. We are in deep dark, uncharted waters. The resistance must change tack .
The Republicans are circling the wagons and are not interested in defending the nation, only the party. Impeachment is too long a route.

Democrats, first and foremost, must stop the hearings for the SCOTUS nominee. Call your representatives.

We must pressure the Supreme Court to hear all of the evidence of the many branches of the intelligence community and then vote to nullify the election.

The SCOTUS is the only body that can overrule the congress and strike down law. They are the body that will have to invalidate the election.

I know... I know. it is unprecedented, it is extra-constitutional, but it must happen and it must happen soon, before we are at war. He is moving his daughter into the White House... they are busy little bees consolidating power to themselves and we don't have much time.

[longship]

1. How in the Sam Hell are you going to constitutionally annul a presidential election?

There are only two ways.

1. Impeachment by the US House of Representatives followed by trial in the US Senate.

2. The 25th Amendment where the president is found incapable to fulfill the requirements of the office.

Either way, the new president is the VEEP.

There are no other alternatives!!!

People need to learn their fucking US Constitution! One doesn't get to make shit up about calling a Mulligan about a presidential election in the USA. There are no Mulligans with regards to electing a POTUS.

Drumpf has been elected POTUS no matter what brought him to this state.

Calling for an extra-constitutional solution is a non-starter under our law. Only a mad person would advocate such a thing.

[Zoonart]

5. Not mad, I assure you.

If the Russians were in this to prove that they can own our elections any time they want to , then it is easy to surmise they own other of our hackable institutions and financial lever. We don't have time for impeachment. We need to send a message that says we are willing to color outside the line too. They think we are weak because we are constrained by our constitution. Extra-constitutional may be our only play.
The constitution is not the Bible. If it is not a living document, then it is a relic.

[uponit7771]

23. Please prove a constitutional provision is needed or please stop this RWTP

[longship]

76. Just read your damned constitution.

Where in it does it explain how to annul a presidential election?

That's right. It isn't there, except for impeachment and trial, or the 25th amendment.

That's the law.

And people ought to be smart enough to know that one cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove something that does not exist, that there is a way to have a magical presidential election do-over. Such a thing does not exist.

[longship]

84. They didn't see it. That's why it's not in the constitution.

And I do not remain calm when people recommend extra-constitutional solutions. Nor should you.

Just read the responses in this thread. What some here are recommending has no legal basis whatsoever.

Drumpf is the legal president, like it or not. I do not like it, but there are no do-overs. NONE!!

[TeapotInATempest]

100. Yes, agreed.

It would be an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent to set, to remove a president using extra-constitutional means. We're going to have to work with what we've got.

[Alice11111]

179. Lots of things aren't specifically in the Constitution, but

They are interpreted to be included from something that is. That's how we got Citizens United, and hundreds of thousands of other cases, that are law.

States often have a provision for a recall election in certain circumstanes. Our Constitution does not. Even RBGinsburg says there are other Constitutions better than ours.

It is a flaw, but w the right challenge, and a trip to the Supreme Court, it could be reinterpreted. Problem is the new Sup Crt probably wouldn't do it. The plaintiffs need to come from the Fed circuit encompassing Wash State, which would be a circuir court likely to uphold it on appeal. Then if the Sup Crt refused to hear it, we would have it.

I think about ways of doing this a lot.

[longship]

182. The constitution is very clear on how a president is elected.

We are way past that part (by about two months).

There is no mechanism within the constitution to roll back the clock to 8 Nov 2016 (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and redo the election. And once the electors do their job, they are done and we have a president sworn in on 20 Jan. That is what the constitution very explicitly states.

There are no constitutional provisions for any fucking do-overs if one party does not like the outcome, or even if a foreign nation interferes with the electoral process.

So we have Drumpf as POTUS now.

We had better damned well get organized to resist this idiot tyrant, because we will damned well need to be organized.

First step... Stop ringing that cockamaimie election do-over bell. It is useless.

[Alice11111]

183. I'm not saying we shouldn't resist, but challenge him in

the courts as well, in every conceivable legal way.

Again, we have a lot of law that isn't spelled out in the constitution. Much of it was made to fill gaps in the Constitution as the needs of society have evolved. It was intended to be a document that could evolve. The situation here could not have been contemplated by the founders. If they are in heaven, they are probably in an uproar in a pub shouting that the Constitution needs to be fixed. An amendment isn't a practical remedy for this.

So we lose, hells bells, let's throw some darts.

[longship]

186. It is too late. No ex post facto laws.

They are explicitly forbidden in the constitution.

So all we have is the impeachment/trial for high crimes or misdimeanors, or the 25th amendment's incapacity scenario. The former requires a majority of the House to impeach and 2/3rds of the Senate to convict. The latter requires a majority of the cabinet officers plus the VEEP to declare POTUS as being incapacitated, with possible overrule by congress.

Either way, the current VEEP gains all presidential powers. In the former case VEEP becomes the actual president. In the latter, the presidency is a bit fuzzy as the displaced president can attempt to regain his office after some time. I don't think anybody wants a 25th amendment solution here. And a 2/3rds majority in a senate trial is just not going to happen short of some significantly bad outcome that only a mad person would wish for.

We are in a bit of a pickle here. We should probably go for impeachment/trial, but one hopes that Schumer has an accurate senate vote count before we venture down that road. That will take time, maybe years.

[Alice11111]

187. I do not think ex post facto applies in this case.

We would not be making a law to make something DT did a crime or even a civil violation after the fact. This goes to a recall for of an election that was intervened in by a foreign power and illegal or unthical, in the sense of lawyer required ethics, by the FBI.

I'm not saying it will work, but I think it is worth a try w a 10pc chance. Plus, I believe a goid faith argument might be made. Let's try 20 things w a 10pc chance.

[longship]

191. They all would be ex post facto laws.

Which is unconstitutional by Article I Section 9 Clause 3.

If the DJT election was not illegal under US law (it wasn't illegal) one cannot make a law ex post facto to make it illegal.

There is no law in the US for recalling a presidential election. None whatsoever. So any law providing for such a recall would be a new one and thus be ex post facto.

There is zero percent of success on that path. It's dreamland.

[Alice11111]

192. How do you think we got the thousands of case laws that

Were not Spelled out or contemplated in the constitution?

Ex post facto law would not apply here. We are not talking about a person, even in the citizens united sense.

Nometheless, I do agree it is a very long shot! It would not be the first time that new case law was interpreted from the constitution on a long shot, obviously.

At the least, it would expose the flaw in the Constitution.
How did we get rid of Dredd Scott? Exposing, chipping, and then finally it was time to overrule. This is not even overruling, it's an interpretation of the Constitution, which happens frequently.

Strict constructionism for Dems, usually means Repubs win, and we lose, which it why the love it.

[uponit7771]

113. Read YOUR'S!!! There's NOTHING restricting a redo ... NOTHING !! There's provisions and a right

... to have one done but NOTHING restricting of one being redoing

There's nothing in the constitution restricting you from swimming either !!!

I don't think people are even listening

[longship]

125. Damn it! The Constitution specifically prescribes how a president is elected!!!

There is nothing in it that says there are do-overs if one doesn't like the result, or even if a foreign country interferes. That's the law of the land.

Now folks can make shit up all they want that this wasn't so, but it won't change a damned thing. Plus, no court would support a do-over because that would be unconstitutional.

I am done here.

[uponit7771]

164. We agree on the prescribing but not a restriction

[longship]

166. No! It is you that claims no restrictions! Incorrectly, I might add.

There are no fucking do-overs for presidential elections!!!

The only solution once a president is in office is impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate, or removal due to incapacity via the 25th amendment.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Drops mic.

[uponit7771]

167. Please link and quote the constitution restricting congress to make a law for another prez election

... DATE ... (I'm testing your knowledge as you tested mine)

[longship]

169. No Ex post facto!!!!

Gees! Louise!!!!
Here, read the damned thing:
Ex post facto law

Here is the particular section (for the clicking impaired):

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

The election anullment advocates have no leg to stand on here. That's why we have to work within the constitution.

[uponit7771]

170. So I'll take this answer to be there is no restriction of congress making a law setting another DATE

... for the election

Enter your ad hom here:

[longship]

171. I've updated my response.

And I have not posted any ad hominems. I have merely disagreed with people's opinions on the constitution. Regretfully some confuse disagreement with personal attack. I have great respect for my fellow DUers in spite of our disagreements.

Please reread my response above, because I have amended it for clarification. The US Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws.

Thanks.

[WillowTree]

161. There's also nothing in the Constitution.......

.......restricting you from stripping naked and dancing the can-can on the White House lawn at High Noon, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Our government isn't run on the premise that you can do anything that the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit and I think you probably know that. When you go about convincing yourself that things are the way you want them to be just because that's what you want, more often than not you're going to be disappointed.

[longship]

172. See my posts above, esp Ex post facto.

Drumpf is regretfully POTUS.

The only path now is either impeachment in the House followed by conviction in the Senate (by a 2/3 majority!), or removal due to disability by a majority of the cabinet members (plus the VEEP and subject to overrule by congress). Either way we get President Pence, a fucking theocrat.

That's how it is. Get used to the fact that we live in a constitutional republic, guided by that constitution which is very, very clear about these matters.

[WillowTree]

174. Totally agree. I suspect that your last comment was meant to be directed to someone else.

[longship]

175. Possibly. The thread is getting fairly full.

I apologize for misdirecting my argument.

[WillowTree]

177. True that. No offense taken at all.

[longship]

181. No offense intended.

Alas, some people confuse disagreement with personal attack. Like Monty Python aptly reminded us all, an argument is:

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

And:

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Here, everybody enjoy:

[Alice11111]

180. See my post 2 above on a challenge

[VOX]

68. Is the situation were reversed, Republicans would already be working in it.

They don't do anything but stir up shit when a Democrat's in the White House. But when things don't go their way, they will fight like rabid dogs.

[Morris64]

145. This post is refreshing. Thank you, NT

[FSogol]

2. What part of the Constitution contains the "Do Over" provision?

[Zoonart]

4. None

You notice, I said extra-constitutional, outside the bounds of the constitution. The founders never foresaw this.

[ecstatic]

14. What part of the constitution addresses Trump and his criminal enterprise?

We're in uncharted territory.

[forthemiddle]

75. High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

I don't mean to be glib, but there we are a country run by a Constitution, and if we would expect the SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution, when else could they look the other way?

[truebluegreen]

78. Congress decides what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

'Nuff said.

[INdemo]

197. The SCOTUS had no trouble bending the guidelines of the Constitution in 2000 by appointing Bush or

with Citizens United calling corporations people too.

[uponit7771]

22. Please prove that one is needed or stop this RWTP of constitution standing in the way

[truebluegreen]

79. Oh vey

What the Constitution actually says is a RWTP now?

Please point to the do-oversies clause.

[mythology]

101. What utter asinine bullshit

People being able to read isn't a right wing talking point. Such infantile name calling should be beneath people here.

[uponit7771]

109. Nope, proffering that there's a restriction to doing something in the constitution when there's not

... is though and that's all they've been doing

[Vinca]

3. That's definitely what SHOULD happen, but there's no way for it to actually happen.

If our founding documents had a provision about popular vote being a backup plan it might be possible, but they don't and what we're looking at is a Republican president no matter how many of them are removed from office. Eddie Munster's dream could come true.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. I wonder how the electoral college would have voted today given what's come out.

[uponit7771]

24. Yes there is, there's no one who said congress can't make a law to do so

[WillowTree]

27. Any such law would be unconstitutional. Not to mention that it would have to be retroactive.

No can do.

[uponit7771]

30. No it wont, there's NOTHING in the constitution RESTRICTING a redo. It allows for the original vote

... but does NOT restrict a new one under said circumstances

[WillowTree]

39. The Constitution outlines how a President is elected and placed in office.

There is absolutely nothing in that document that allows for any other process.

[uponit7771]

112. There's NOTHING restricting a redo either, there's nothing in the constitution restricting me from

... swimming either.

[WillowTree]

121. Dream on.

[cloudbase]

200. Vey iz mir

[onenote]

87. Presumably you think the repubs could pass a law requiring Ruth Ginsburg to be reconfirmed or

lose her seat, since "there's Nothing in the constitution RESTRICTING a redo."

You haven't a clue how the Constitution works. That much is clear.

[uponit7771]

114. There are ALREADY laws on the books for her to lose their seats and congress can set more and

Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 06:25 PM - Edit history (1)

... if she breaks those laws (such as murder) she loses her seat.

Why are people pushing back on this?!

its easy, the "date" is set according to congress there's NOTHING there that says they can't set a new one

[onenote]

126. The Constitution expressly states that the President's term is four years.

There has been an election, conducted pursuant to the provisions in the Constitution and statutes implementing them. The Congress cannot cut short a President's term by calling for a new election before he or she has served four years, except through impeachment or the 25th Amendment process.

Not sure what version of the Constitution you are relying on or whether you're even bothering to familiarize yourself with what is in the Constitution. But you are totally wrong.

[uponit7771]

130. If the election was nulified by law of congress then make a new one, but this is a red herring....

... there's NO WORDING OF "..ONLY..." In regards to election dates set by congress... period

[onenote]

129. Again -- where is there any law that says a Supreme Court justice loses her seat if she commits

a crime?

I look forward to your answer.

Can a Supreme Court Justice be removed for committing a crime? Yes, through the impeachment process, which is not automatic and not found in any statute.

[uponit7771]

131. Strawman, that's not the question at hand ... good try though

[onenote]

135. The question at hand is this:

Can the term of a president be cut short by means other than impeachment or the 25th amendment. You say yes because there is nothing restricting it in the constitution.

But that means that you also think that the "life tenure" given a SCOTUS justice could be ended by means other than impeachment -- the simple act of a majority of Congress that says that Justices have to go through a "re-do" when they turn 82 and a half or when they dissent more than any other justice or whatever else Congress decides and is not, in your words, "restricted" from doing.

That's nuts.

[uponit7771]

147. OK, now you're interjecting precision that wasn't there before... TERM is another issue which is

... harder to argue because there needs to be impeachment of the whole succession of people involved in a term.

I'm all for it for the sake of democracy, impeach all the bastards down to a democrat who will cede there office for an elected dem.

Probable? No

Possible? yes

Possible for another election date unrelated to term? yes, there's nothing in the constitution restricting that

Probable? naw

Wishful thinking I guess, it feels good to think of the possiblity

[tritsofme]

184. Sure, Congress could set a new "election" for tomorrow.

But it would be a beauty contest, and would have zero impact on the term of the incumbent president, which is defined by the Constitution to last four years.

The only way a president's tenure can end early is impeachment, removal through the 25th amendment, or death.

This thread is knee deep in ignorance, pretty sad.

[truebluegreen]

81. Uh FYI Congress can't "make a law"

without a presidential signature and specifically prohibits ex post facto laws. So forget it.

[Foamfollower]

6. I would fight to the death against ANY extra-constitutional removal of ANY president

Twitler included.

That is a coup and has to be stopped by all means necessary, I don't care how stupid, criminal, or asinine the president may be.

I stand with the constitution Fuck criminal treasonous bullshit that goes against it!

[Zoonart]

8. That is why we will loose.

That is our weakness and it will be exploited. The Constitution needs to grow and become more encompassing on the adjudication of chaos.
Sinclair Lewis said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

[onenote]

16. You want the Constitution to "grow" -- then go through the amendment process

[Zoonart]

19. Of course that would be great.

We don't have the luxury of time.

[onenote]

20. We don't have the luxury of pretending the Constitution doesn't exist.

[Hokie]

185. You are correct onenote

If we throw out the Constitution we are as bad as the Republican assholes.

[mythology]

104. Oh good lord

Understanding the importance of the rule of law is a weakness? That's an idiotic argument. It's what enables us to make the case for a better way. It can't be trust us, we'll do this one illegal thing to stop that other illegal thing and then we promise that we will stop.

[uponit7771]

25. Congress can MAKE a law for it to happen, its a RWTP that the constitution is in the way

[WillowTree]

29. See #27.

I know you really, really want it, but we have to accept that the Stones had it right.

[uponit7771]

31. Saw 27, nothing in 27 address's restriction of a redo

[Exilednight]

74. You can't make a law retroactive to include past events.

Let's, for argument's sake, say that no law exists saying murder is a crime and you fatally shoot a man in cold blood: Congress can not make a law six weeks later and put you on trial for it. It would be illegal, and unconstitutional to do so.

[uponit7771]

110. Not the point, the point is people are intimating there's a restriction in the constitution that

... prevents a redo... there's not

[Exilednight]

194. We can't, by any legal means, have a redo.

There is no law that says we can, but there is plenty in the Constitution that says how we do elect leaders.

Any redo would never make it past the courts.

[onenote]

88. Can Congress make a law stripping Ruth Ginsburg of her SCOTUS seat?

Could they require justices to be reconfirmed if they have served a certain number of years or if they dissent in too many cases?

[uponit7771]

111. Yes, there already are laws doing such... she gets convicted of murder she's stripped of her seat

... I'm not getting all this pushback

[onenote]

122. where do find that in the Constitution or in any statute passed by Congress?

Justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" -- which was and is understood as meaning that Justices serve for life unless they are removed via impeachment. An attempt to create a different, lesser standard was proposed during the Constitutional convention and voted down. Under that failed standard, the words "provided that they may be removed by the Executive on the application [by] the Senate and House of Representatives" would have been added, allowing for more automatic removal of a Justice. The fact that this revision failed is the basis for concluding that the "good behaviour" standard is another formulation of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable in impeachment matters.


You're getting pushback because you're making up things that aren't in the Constitution and that are contrary to what is in the Constitution.

[uponit7771]

123. No member of the USSC is above the law, that's a low hanging fruit answer no?

[onenote]

124. And that's why they can be impeached.

But there is no other way to remove a Supreme Court Justice (or for that matter, any other Article III judge).

You really don't know what you're talking about and it shows.

[uponit7771]

128. Red herring, you're question was regarding stripping not HOW it was stripped ... you're ad homs

... show you don't know your own positions on this.

Either way, art 1 and 2 have a varied breadth on removal ... they don't have to break laws to be removed either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Thus the delegates adopted a compromise version allowing impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The precise meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is somewhat ambiguous; some scholars, such as Kevin Gutzman, argue that it can encompass even non-criminal abuses of power. Whatever its theoretical scope, however, Congress traditionally regards impeachment as a power to use only in extreme cases. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings only 62 times since 1789.[citation needed] Two cases did not come to trial because the individuals had left office.

[onenote]

132. Sorry but I have no idea what your message is trying to say.

You have argued because the Constitution doesn't expressly restrict Congress, without impeaching Trump, from ordering a new election (during which time, presumably Trump would not serve as president despite having been elected and sworn into office for the four year term specified in the constitution) it can do so.

I suggested that if you were right (which you decidedly are not), Congress could pass a law removing Supreme Court Justices, who have terms for life under the Constitution unless impeached, without impeaching them.

You argued that Congress not only could pass a law that would cause the removal of a Supreme Court Justice but already has done so.

I asked where such law is. I'm still waiting. The only way to shorten a Supreme Court Justice's term is through impeachment, not the passage of some law or through some judicial action. The only way to shorten a president's term is through impeachment or the 25th amendment process (which is harder than impeachment) not through some law or judicial action.

It's really that simple.

[uponit7771]

142. You're using the word removal widely and not stating ALL of my position which includes impeaching

... the sitting president for ANYTHING including his VP and SOTH.

Benedict Donald can be impeached for being an asshole ... or not being duly elected.

Probability is nil... possibility because there's no constitutional restrictions on the date congress sets for elections... there's no ONLY in regards to dates set in the constitution... that's what the central argument of the anti "do over" crowd is imho.

[onenote]

146. If this thread is about impeachment, then why is there so much in it about a "re-do" of the election

Somebody's trying to change horses, methinks.

[uponit7771]

150. No, no red herring the thinking is how to get RID of the current president and that's to impeach

... him because he's not duly elected.

Of course the who succession of his term is in question but that doesn't mean he can't be replaced down to a dem who would cede there seat to a duly elected president seeing there's nothing in the constitution that would restrict another presidential election from happening.

I'm not talking about probability here which in my argument there's little

Possibility yes, slim...

[onenote]

151. It's not that you're argument doesn't have low probability. It's that its wrong as a matter of law.

There is no standard for cutting short a president's term short of impeachment (or the 25th amendment) We seem, I think, to agree on that (although its hard to tell from your posts).

If the president is impeached, he no longer is able to serve and, under the Constitution, the VP becomes president. The vacancy in the Vice Presidency is not filled by a new election -- its filled by the President (formerly the VP) upon confirmation by a simple majority in the House and Senate.

There is no room anywhere in this process for Congress or the Courts to create a different process involving a new election. None. Just as there is no room in the Constitution for the Congress to cut short a Supreme Court justice's term and go around having the President fill the vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate. None.

[uponit7771]

154. Ok, impeach sitting prez and for being an asshole (which sounds good) & not being duly elected ....

... elected (which has more grounds) all the way through his succession path cause they're assholes too and they weren't duly elected either.

There, we've repealed his term and replaced it with new duly elected prez which can happen the day after the election ..

There is no room anywhere in this process for Congress or the Courts to create a different process involving a new election.

We agree on this ... what it sounds like we DON'T agree on is the restriction on CREATING one via congress... I don't find in the constitution the word ... ONLY... in regards to election dates and mechanisms doing such... there's nothing saying we CAN NOT replace (via impeachment) a term (including the succession path) for president via new laws and then congress set a new date for presidential elections BEFORE the 4 year term is out.

[onenote]

160. Flaws in your approach are many

Apparently you want to impeach simultaneously the President, VP, Speaker of the House and pretty much everyone down the line of succession. Apart from that being goofier than imaginable, it runs into a more fundamental problem. Senators and Congresscritters can't be impeached. And the current Speaker and the President Pro Temper of the Senate (both in the line of succession) are members of Congress-- they could only be impeached AFTER they abandoned those offices and were elevated to the presidency. And that would repeat itself over and over again -- you'd never have all the vacancies you seem to need to create a vacuum that could only be filled by a new election.

I do have a question -- under your concept, what would be the term of the person elected in the "re-do" election?

[uponit7771]

165. Last question, the rest of the term of the first ... nothing restriicting a law to be made describin

... describing such.

The house members can be "expelled"

come on, we have google now ...

Either way, I'm not saying this wouldn't be messy ... I'm saying for the sake of democracy it could be done lest we just accept what Russia has done ... fuck Pooty Poot ... and fuck Benedict Donald

[onenote]

176. Fail again.

Google also is your friend.

After the Speaker is "expelled" the House could re-fill that spot with anyone a majority of the House could agree on. Or they could leave it vacant and expel the President Pro Tempore, and that vacancy could be filled with anyone a majority agreed upon.

So in what universe would a Congress that could agree to expel the Speaker and/or the President Pro Tempore not simply appoint someone to be Speaker or President Pro Tem to become the president, who would then appoint a VP thus obviating any need to order a "re-do" election. And since the Constitution says that the House and Senate "shall" choose a Speaker and President Pro Tem, there is no way under the Constitution Congress could elect not to follow this command and instead order a new election.

Sorry.

[JHan]

58. the coup already happened..

Trump is in the whitehouse. I disagree with the conclusions of the OP but it grasps the seriousness of what happened last year.

[MFM008]

85. Look at all those silly

Things that weren't written into the constitution. ..women voters...prohibition. ..repeal of prohibition.... because 1775 by slave owning founding fathers.
So don't think the constitution is so inflexible it can't be AMENDED.

[onenote]

89. I suggested amendment as the process and the OP rejected it.

And if the votes were there to amend the constitution the votes would be there to impeach and convict.

[halobeam]

9. The only thing right would be for staying within the constitution... BUT

Because of the damage to the trust in this country, the ONLY ones that could fix this best as possible is the republicans, placing a TRULY moderate republican and VP in office.

On top of that, to stop ALL the petty party line BS, and get some real shit done that helps the American People.

Paper Ballots ONLY, toss CrossCheck out on its ass, redistricting done right, UN oversight to next few elections, etc., until trust is restored.

Anything short of this, will not help nor heal this country.

What you suggest is harder to make happen and less likely, than anything I have just suggested (and what I suggested, likely doesn't have a chance in hell of happening either).

Just my thoughts.

[Zoonart]

11. I would not be so sure of that...

What do we have a SCOTUS for, after all? They are the best legal minds in the country...they can craft a work around that would be acceptable to both political parties. It can be included in the constitution later. The constitution is already in jeopardy of becoming useless; if the barbarians are indeed inside the gates. Why does no one see this?

If this coup has already occurred... and the GOP is just going to ignore it. It is already too late for the constitution and a for future elections.

[Demsrule86]

15. We have a political court...and your post makes no sense.

SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues...thus there is nothing they can do if the constitution is not involved.

[onenote]

91. If there was a "workaround" the Constitution acceptable to both parties

why wouldn't both parties just agree to impeach Trump?

You really aren't thinking this through.

[JimGinPA]

10. Yeah, Good Luck With That...

I'm sure all the honest repubs are with you too.

[Zoonart]

12. I am NOT a Republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimGinPA]

41. I Certainly Didn't Mean To Imply You Were...

Just pointing out how silly your OP is.

[Demsrule86]

13. It won't happen.

The best we can hope for is Trump is tossed out and we get one of the other GOP stooges...Pence, Ryan and even Rick Perry is in the mix depending on if Pence and Ryan go down. They are going to ram Gorsuch through... and Kennedy may retire...it is shit show. And president Bannon will affect our country for many years.

[Zoonart]

17. So.... capitulation

[truebluegreen]

82. Reality bites.

[MineralMan]

18. As you said, it would be extraconstitutional, and therefore

the Supreme Court will not consider it at all. That will not happen, because there is simply no mechanism to do that. Impeachment and removal, resignation, and perhaps a 25th Amendment action are the only recourses, really.

[Zoonart]

21. I know you are right...

but I fear that we need a Hail Mary. Just spit-balling one.
The Republicans will not remove him, and if they do... in a year... two years, the damage will have been done for generations.
Rewarding t his criminal enterprise known as the Republican Party, with another shot at the Presidency after removal of Trump is also criminal.

[MineralMan]

26. There is no Hail Mary clause in the Constitution, either.

We have to stick to our guns on this. The minute we go outside of our founding document, that document ceases to have any relevance.

Things are underway, already, that will probably lead to Trump's resignation, if not impeachment and removal.

We have to be patient, because we failed to elect the better candidate last November. Perhaps we will learn from that. I certainly hope so.

[triron]

120. except the election was a scam.

You imply legitimacy to it. "we" did not elect Trump imo.

[uponit7771]

28. No it wont, congress can simply make a law since there's nothing in the constitution saying that it

... CAN'T be done.

I don't know why people are hanging their hats on the constitution RESTRICTING a redo.

The constitution allows for a vote but doesn't RESTRICT a redo

[brooklynite]

36. Please share your Constitutional Law bonafides...

I HAVE studied Con Law and there is NO workaround short of chucking the Constitution; in which case all those rights that YOU care about go out as well.

Art 2 Sec 1.1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

"A term of four years". NOT "a term that can be shortened if the Congress decides to hold a new Election"

Art 2 Sec 1.2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Whether or not the Russians attempted to influence voters' choices is irrelevant, because VOTERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. STATES determine the selection process for Electors; if they choose to grant that right to voters, other Constitutional provisions on voting rights kick in.

Art 2 Sec 1.4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

This is the only right Congress has to determine when the Election is held for the next Presidential Term.

Art 2 Sec 1.6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,9 the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

This is the process by which VP Pence becomes President if Trump leaves, is removed, or dies

Art 2 Sec 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This is the sole mechanism for removal of the President before his four year term is up.

Amendment 25 Sec 1: In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Sec 3: Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Sec 4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Absent death, removal or resignation, this is the only provision that allows (temporarily) for the transfer of the President's powers, again ONLY to VP Pence.

[uponit7771]

115. Appeal to authority, I could care less if your RGB herself you'd still be wrong there's nothing in..

... constitution RESTRICTING a redo.

The constitution makes way for an election to be done an guarantees it but does NOT ... NOT anywhere in the constitution say another election for president can NOT be done with a date set by congress.

Are people even listening?!

[onenote]

137. The Constitution says a president holds office "during the term of four years"

What you are proposing would directly conflict with that specific Constitutional requirement.

Sorry. You lose.

[uponit7771]

143. Unless they're impeached which could be just for being an asshole ... including his VP and SOTH

[msanthrope]

67. Um, no. Congress just can't "make a law.". nt

[uponit7771]

117. They do it all the time for special prosecution, or are we sword smithing here for the sake of ...

... arguing

[Foamfollower]

168. You are apparently just making stuff up

There is no constitutional mechanism to support what you claim!

[TheFrenchRazor]

155. correct. nt

[uponit7771]

156. Yeah, I know its wishful thinking but there's a slight chance which I'm willing to take

It's not probable but it is possible to impeach Benedict Donald and his whole succession path and for congress to set a new date for presidential elections before a 4 year term is up.

There's nothing restricting congress from doing this that I've read ... there's no ONLY in regards to the 4 year date

[MFM008]

86. Couldn't they create

A mechanism?
The 2000 election judgement was unprecedented ....
Just wondering.

[MineralMan]

90. No. SCOTUS can only adjudicate

laws on a constitutional basis, for the most part.

It can't create any new legislation or change existing legislation. It can only rule, based on the Constitution.

It has a couple of other responsibilities, including judging conflicts between states, and a few other things, but it can't alter the Constitution. It can only interpret it.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows any methods for removal of a President other than the impeachment and removal by Congress and the 25th Amendment, which is a process for removing a President who is unable to perform his duties due to some disability.

The 2000 presidential case had to do with the recount process in Florida. It changed nothing about how Presidents are elected nor how they could be removed from office. It was a legal case ruled on by the court.

[uponit7771]

118. YES !!! There's nothing RESTRICTING them from doing so. There's no "ONLY" for a date regarding ...

... a presidential election in the constitution.

[brooklynite]

32. Nope; not how we do things here.

If chargeable allegations about Trump or campaign involvement can be found, Impeach and remove him; if House GOP refuses to, we go to the ballot box in 2018.

Once we choose an "extra-constitutional" solution for this matter, we open the door to them anytime the other side feels the same way.

[beachbum bob]

33. democrats are not in power and 2018 is the soonest anything can be changed, better to make

efforts towards 2018 election of democrats at state. local and national efforts....just saying...efforts should be focused to take back congress first and foremost

[Zoonart]

35. TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

Tillerson is skipping NATO and visiting Russia instead? What do you think that means?

Elliot Engel-

"I cannot fathom why the Administration would pursue this course except to signal a change in American foreign policy that draws our country away from western democracy's most important institutions and aligns the United States more closely with the autocratic regime in the Kremlin," [Representative Eliot Engel] added.

There may be no election in 2018

[ladjf]

34. Agree that a reelection should and could be done.

[brooklynite]

37. Explain how

[Zoonart]

60. Precedent

Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate
By MICHAEL deCOURCY HINDS,
Published: February 19, 1994
FACEBOOK

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 18— Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago.


And we're not even talking treason here.

[brooklynite]

64. State Elections are not addressed by the Constitution; Federal Elections are

[WillowTree]

69. I have yet to see any evidence that Zoonart cares what the Constitution does or doesn't allow.

[Recursion]

38. The Senate was the only body that could nullify it, and they did not

There's no Constitutional provision for what you want to do.

[GulfCoast66]

40. I will give you the benefit of the doubt

But that is the craziest thing I have ever read on DU. A re-do on the election?

How do you propose we do that?? Storm the White House? And the Capitol Building?

And what about the period between dethroning Trump and the crazy new election? Perhaps a temporary governing body, say we call it the Committee of Public Safety?

Just stop it. You are looking silly. Trump was elected under the rules of our Constitution. If he is to be removed it will be under the rules of the constitution.

[Zoonart]

43. Not mad, I assure you.

It goes to Ryan while we plan a new election.
My entire point is that I don't think we have time for impeachment. That will take years IF we can get the Republicans on board.. Meanwhile Tillerson is skipping NATO and going to Russia. What do you think that means?

[GulfCoast66]

50. It means America elected a very bad leader

But he was elected.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. No one's going to agree to an extra-Constitutional solution, no matter how warranted it might seem.

At this point I'd love to see it happen, but it's not going to happen.

[Tatiana]

44. We would have to convene a Constitutional convention or have someone in Congress

propose a Constitutional amendment tailored to the circumstances of illegitimacy. Then it would have to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

That's a tall order. We'd have to have super-majorities in both the House and Senate. It's not impossible, but it would take careful planning, an overwhelming win during the midterms, and a concerted public appeal to generate support.

We can't just have a "do-over" even if it would be a just action. We have to look for ways to fix this within the framework outlined in the Constitution.

[Iggo]

45. Except it can't be and it won't be. (n/t)

[Zoonart]

46. You are probably right about that.

Just looking for a way out and impeachment is not it.
I think this is why DiFi looked so stricken when she emerged from. last weeks briefing. She knows that we are boxed in by the process.
Events will outstrip our ability to act.

[Iggo]

47. No way out of it but through it. (n/t)

[onenote]

93. If impeachment isn't it, how exactly would this "do-over" happen

Do you think a new election could be scheduled and held without any involvement by Congress? Who would make Congress and/or the states implement a new election? How long would the campaign last? What would prevent electors from casting their votes for Trump or the Repubs from disallowing any non-Trump electoral votes.

It's magical thinking of the worst sort because it's really magical non-thinking.

[AngryAmish]

48. Constitutional Convention Now!

Just change the damn Constitution and we are done with Trump.

[WillowTree]

49. Yeah. 'Cause that would take less than 4 years.

Not.

[onenote]

95. And probably done with the First Amendment and who knows what else

Assuming a Constitutional convention could reach an agreement on some "do over" provision and get it through the states needed for ratification and not tinker with every other thing in the Constitution.

[Initech]

107. Fucking hell no!!!!

We won't get to change shit if that happens. That will be the wet dream of the billionaires and the clergy. No, just absolutely no.

[YoungDemCA]

51. Yeah I can't see anything wrong going with this plan.

nt

[WillowTree]

52. On another front, you say "Democrats.......must stop the hearings for the SCOTUS nominee."

How would you propose that the Senate Democrats do that?

[Zoonart]

54. Refuse to participate...

just as the Republicans would do. Then, go to the press and make their case that a president under this big a cloud of suspicion should not get to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The other side held up BHO appointment for FAR less.

[WillowTree]

56. And you honestly believe that would stop the Rs from pushing the nomination through?

[Zoonart]

57. I do not...

but it would not contribute too his legitimacy and would force the MSM to treat the story differently.
Baby steps, but concrete ones.

[onenote]

96. I have a couple of bridges you might be interested in purchasing

You seem that sort of person who would believe that.

[get the red out]

53. No constitutional mechanism

[CTyankee]

55. The only way I see it it iis if they invoke the "unable to perform his duties

and that is a slender reed indeed. If it is determiined that he is stark, raving mad...and I wouldn't know that is done...

[onenote]

97. And even if they did, they'd still need votes comparable to an impeachment vote to make it stick

Need 2/3 vote of both houses ultimately (even more than needed for impeachment)

[CTyankee]

199. At this rate it won't be too long before even the repubs see he's not in his right mind

and get scared shitless, IMO.

[INdemo]

59. I remember the Nixon Impeachment proceedings and his evential resignation

I remember when a group of Senators (lead by Senator Goldwater) visited the White house and informed him the votes were there for impeachment. They convinced him to resign to save face..
I think we will perhaps see the same action with the current Senate Committee responsible to bring about impeachment hearing but before this happens I believe a Senate group will pay President Trump a visit.
Granted the current Republican Senators are more for the party than being a Patriot,but when the chips fall as they are now Trump will have no other choice but to resign..
For those of you that remember the Watergate hearing is this close?

[onenote]

98. It's a far different situation

At the time Nixon was President, the Democrats controlled the House and Senate by significant margins. Now you have a President whose own party has control of both Houses.

Controlling the House made it easy for the Democrats to seriously threaten Nixon with impeachment -- today, however, a substantial number of republicans would have to jump ship for the House to impeach.

Same thing for conviction -- a lot of Repubs would have to abandon Trump to convict. We live in far more politically polarized times than 1974, and its simply not likely that repubs are going to abandon Trump with something equivalent or greater than the "smoking gun" that took down Nixon.

[INdemo]

195. I dont necessarly mean Impeachment..Just when/if there is enough evidence

to show there is/was a connection with Trump and the Russians and Trump loses nearly all of his credibilty than he would have no choice but to resign.This is where the Senators would have that conversation with him and recommend he resign.

Of Course the Republican Congress would not dare mention the phrase "Impeachment" but with the Congress of 1973-74 sure Democrats had the Majority but Republicans then were not just about Party they were also Patriots for the most part.
Today's Republicans are all about Party and Corporatism

[liquid diamond]

61. All of this shit could have been prevented

if those fucking purists could have held their noses and voted for Hillary. No matter what happens to trump we are fucked for the next four to eight years.

[Zoonart]

62. Sad but true

[INdemo]

196. Don't think so I don't belirve Donald Trump really wanted this job.

for him it was just a ego trip...He is like the dog chasing the car..the dog catches the car and has no idea what to do with it.

[liquid diamond]

198. I know he didn't want this job.

I remember on election night after he was declared the winner, I saw a picture of him with one hand under his jaw and slouched in a chair. His gold digging wife is next to him with her eyes closed looking disappointed. Their body language said it all.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

63. Emotionally I'm right there with you

Practically/logically, there doesn't seem to be any way out of this nightmare other than doing everything we can to ensure that we elect so many Democrats at the local, state, and federal level that the Trumpublican damage to this country is minimized and that Trump doesn't walk away with another 4 years of playing President.

[Zoonart]

65. I understand that I am making na emotional argument.

There are so many very bright people here at Du ...real patriots, with real heart. All I am trying to do is encourage them to think outside of the box, because, make no mistake, we are in one.

[zipplewrath]

66. You're calling for a revolution

Really, that is the only way to accomplish what you advocate. It will be violent. And there are precious few revolutions that resulted in any sort of immediately improved situation. They typically devolve for extended periods before anything desirable rises out of the ashes. Quite honestly, I would suspect it would cause a permanent dislocation of the country with two or three independent coalitions forming among the various states, along with some states bifurcating into multiple entities.

The EC and representation in congress in general needs to be fixed. We have mucked up the system with the changes made over the decades such that it no longer accomplishes what it was set out to do. A minority of this country is consolidating power, with no intent of forming a majority, but quite the opposite, intends to further shrink the ruling class to an ever smaller population.

[Zoonart]

70. I am not calling for a revolution.

Please do not ascribe that motive to me. I am simply positing that minds brighter than mine should begin to think outside of the box to look for solutions. Just a discussion not a call to arms.

[zipplewrath]

72. Brighter minds

Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Brighter minds know that if one tried to force out a president "extra-constitutionally", that there would be citizens, and for that matter LOE's that would take up arms to stop you. Further, any member of the military, any member of congress, and really, ANY constitutional officer would be obliged to oppose you, even to the point of violence, based upon their sworn duty to "...preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."

[VOX]

71. Counter-revolution, to be fair.

Republicans, with Russian help, pulled theirs off at the least problematic time: under the cover of an election year.

And make no mistake, it was a revolution. Bannon has proudly admitted as much.

[zipplewrath]

73. They did it at the ballot box

They got people to vote for them. If you can prove they did it illegally, you can have them removed from office and potentially put in jail. But their election was certified by congress and now cannot be "undone", and the most liberal member of the Supreme Court would see it that way and therefor the order of succession would be preserved until the person who could NOT be removed from office wound up in the job.

[truebluegreen]

77. Can we just stop with the magical thinking?

[yellowcanine]

80. "it is extra-constitutional" No. It is unconstitutional. And therefore cannot be done.

Full stop. What you are proposing is a coup. And the SCOTUS would never do this. Impeachment and conviction or use of the 25th Amendment is the ONLY way legally remove a President.

[steve2470]

92. Won't happen and extra-constitutional is another way of saying illegal

1- We already have impeachment, the 25th Amendment and "pressured resignation" available.
2- If such a magical thing were to happen, millions would go into the streets and we'd probably have a civil war on our hands
3- How would we Democrats like it if the Republicans did it to us ?

Face it, Trump won fair and square, largely because of our poor turnout in the battleground states of the midwest. It sucks but it's the harsh reality. In 2018 and 2020 we need to get out people to the polls, no matter who is on the ticket.

[caroldansen]

94. Actually it CAN be done. Even the Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God.

Zoonart has a very good point. If the tables were reversed you know the republicans would be working on it night and day. If we have a new election while Ryan temporarily takes over that would take care of any arguments about the election. Most who voted for Trump are against him now. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

[onenote]

99. Jeezus H Crimminy. This isn't about faith. It's about law.

And the law is clear.

Most who voted for Trump are not against him now and if you think so you are sadly sadly mistaken.

[Kablooie]

102. Even if there was a mechanism for that the Republicans would quash it. No chance in hell.

Just because it's right, important or necessary doesn't mean it will ever happen.

[L. Coyote]

103. I don't think nullification is extra-Constitutional, it enforces our rights under the Constitution.

We have rights under the Constitution to fair representation. The test question would be abridgement of guaranteed rights.

[WillowTree]

105. There is no such thing as an electoral mulligan.

The Constitution outlines specific mechanisms for electing and installing a president and specific mechanisms for removing a president from office. None of them allow for a re-vote, thus making the suggestions in the OP both extra-constitutional and unconstitutional. None.

[L. Coyote]

106. And yet, the Court has advanced just such a case.

Petition Before SCOTUS Seeks To Nullify Election
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/12/1632869/-Petition-Before-SCOTUS-Seeks-To-Nullify-Election

[WillowTree]

108. The Court did no such thing.

The petition was denied. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-907.htm

[onenote]

139. As many of us predicted with great certainty that it would be.

It was never "advanced." It merely was scheduled for consideration, like any other petition. A ministerial act. And once consideration occurred, it predictably was denied.

[WillowTree]

149. Exactly. Never considered at all, let alone 'advanced'.

The petition was 'distributed for conference' on Friday.......and denied on Monday. Very efficient those Supremes!

[uponit7771]

119. +1

[0rganism]

116. strangely enough, the founders DID present a remedy for this situation

... even BEFORE they wrote the Constitution.

the founders' document presenting said remedy begins thusly:
"When in the course of human events..."

which outlines, with occasional detail, their trademarked extra-constitutional method for reconfiguring a fatally-flawed government.

are you ready to pledge your life, fortune, and sacred honor to the cause?

[delisen]

157. Yeah, why not..

[triron]

159. It's about come to that hasn't it?

But Americans are too comfortable with the status quo I'm afraid.

[gopiscrap]

127. I so agree

[Warren DeMontague]

133. "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously"

Someone said that, right?

There's not going to be an "election nullification" nor should anyone be talking about "extra-constitutional rememdies".

If the guy did half the things we think he may have, impeach him. That's the Constitutional remedy.

We'll have another election in 2018, for congress.

I'm not sure what moving his daughter into the White House in particular brings this to the leve of constitutional crisis.

[NurseJackie]

134. Interesting thought. HOW could this be done? Is it even possible?

[onenote]

140. It can't be and won't be.

[NurseJackie]

144. As I expected. (Thanks.)

[Sunlei]

136. IMO best case is we're stuck with Pence & Ryan, unless they've colluded or knew about Russians.

After they 100% backed someone as UNFIT as trump for president, let him lie & lie- I don't trust Republicans.

[aikoaiko]

138. No thank you. I prefer constitutional solutions.

[onenote]

141. +1

[Kimchijeon]

148. If this were possible, YES. I think it would be wise

Any means to nullify and remove the current illegitimate admin should be used, because they have committed so much crime already...and achieved the office by committing treason/crimes.

[arthritisR_US]

153. It absolutely should be but it won't be :(

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

158. Apparently you don't fully understand that we have no mechanism

to do any such thing.

But just for the sake of discussion I'll go along with and ask: Once the election is nullified, then what? Who becomes President? How soon can a new election be held? How would the political parties nominate candidates? The practical considerations are insurmountable.

Then of course, there is that pesky problem of there being no way to do any such thing in this country. Unless (and here's a thought) your idea of nullifying the election is for sufficient rioting in the streets to occur as to force certain politicians to flee in terror and renounce their offices, and that a leader of those street rioters steps in. Maybe that would work.

[delisen]

163. We are politically the descendents of people who turned to natural law to

reject a king. what they did was considered illegal and/or treasonous. Yet they persisted and won.

The Department of Justice and Spiro Agnew got him out of office on a plea bargain. there was nothing in the Constitution. that spoke to Nelson Rockefeller becoming Ford's vp--Congress recognized this but decided to use precedent of how Ford became president-and did it.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

173. The founders organized a Revolution,

and I'm glad they did. They didn't try to replace the King in England, but set up an entirely new government, new country, here.

And the replacing of Spiro Agnew, which I remember very clearly, was needed to be able to move forward with impeaching Nixon. As it is, the entire Watergate thing, including replacing Agnew, took over two years to play out, from the original break-in on June 17, 1972 to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974.

I think a lot of people forget just how long it all took, because they tend to think of Watergate as starting with the Watergate hearings which commenced on May 17, 1973 and lasted two weeks. For a year after Nixon did his best to stonewall Congress about everything connected to it.

Our Constitution does have a provision for replacing a President. It does not have a provision for nullifying an election. There's a huge difference.

[delisen]

162. I applaud your suggestion.Governments/civilizations fall when the people no longer believe in them

This is the crisis we are heading to: When the people no longer consent, the government dies.

We have eventually consented, in the recent past, to things we did not believe in. G.W. Bush's "selection' by the Supreme Court. The vote outcome in 2004 in Ohio, Illegal voter suppression practices, Mitch McConnell's refusal to let the Senate advice and consent on the president's Supreme Court nominee.

In each case we were asked to take bite of the elephant and we did-- but now we are being asked to take a very large bite-and we are choking on it. The fact that people all over the country are choking is how we will save our democracy.

Republicans, so business oriented, are very familiar with the old sales lesson on how to get the prospect to buy more than they can afford or want:

Q.How do you get a person to swallow an elephant? A. One bite at a time

It is time to stop biting and acknowledge that not only are the people being choked, our Constitution and our Civilization is being choked,

IN 2000 was there a constitutional map that laid out how a president would be chosen under the circumstances of the Florida election ? Incidentally Putin, during that election, pointed out that the Florida election was not a fair one. He SW a keen observer of US politics even then.

I think you should be outspoken in your belief that we need to ready this injustice--we are in a new circumstance, and politics as well as the the citizenry, our will, will play a part.

What the Constitution lays out is a method for for electing a president by the people and methods for selecting a president under certain circumstances. It does not address all circumstances. It does not speak to this situation.

On December 19, 1974 Nelson Rockefeller became the Vice President of the US. The Constitution did not speak to how he became vp. There had been a constitutional provision for how Ford become vp and then president, so Congress decided to use that as precedent - no one objected. We were working our way out of a crisis.

Agnew actually plea-bargained his way out the the vice-presidency. His resignation was a condition of his plea bargain with the Department of Justice.

In deciding for Bush in 2000, the Supreme Court added a disclaimer that their ruling should not be used a precedent-was it because the Constitution did not speak to what had happened?

Ultimately the people decide. What our politicians fear more than anything is the loss of faith of the people in government. The reality is we are losing faith and it is time for thoughtful but bold action.

We cannot accept the results of an election in which there was major interference by a hostile state power and/or criminal actions the changed the outcome.

[mvd]

178. I'd love to do that. But are we really able to pass a constitutional amendment?

The Repukes would never allow that unless Trump changed into Putin before their eyes. Oh how I wish it could be done.

[Hugo24601]

188. It's needs to be done but I don't see people doing what's necessary.

[Alice11111]

190. K and R. Attack and challenge every way possible.

Not sure it can be nullified, but I do see some light for a recall or lawsuit. We don't have to be sure of winning.
I've taken outliers with almost no chance, that I have won. If I had listened to all of the "reasonable" people, I would not have tried. Sometimes you have to do things, even though you will probably lose.

[DrDan]

193. so . . . you are calling for a coup . . . got it