No, but as head of the executive branch, he can bring charges (I'm thinking a new AG would be helpful here) and if convicted, they'd be gone. This process began with Nixon's first VP, Agnew. But, he resigned before charges could go very far. Nixon then appointed Ford and the Senate confirmed. Could be a similar scenario here. Charge with voter fraud (or whatever). Convict if necessary. Nominate Pence. Senate confirms. Done.
Even better than 1960 is 1876. Things were about is messed up then as now (minus the Communism). VP plays a role as it is ill-defined. This guy has a solid lay out of how things work.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1327399292923875328
Even better than 1960 is 1876. Things were about is messed up then as now (minus the Communism). VP plays a role as it is ill-defines. This guy has a solid lay out of how things work.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1327399292923875328
Even better than 1960 is 1876. Things were about is messed up then as now (minus the Communism). VP plays a role as it is ill-defines. This guy has a solid lay out of how things work.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1327399292923875328
Absolutely. The only way PA et al can hope to have some kind of prayer of winning is to say "Yes, our actions are completely constitutional, here's how..." but they don't (because they can't.) Moreover, they don't even try.
Electoral college votes-following the Civil War, the US gov't was worried that 'insurrection' and actions connected to it, would be used to deny freed slaves their rights as new US citizens. So, in the 14th Amdmt are provisions to strip congressional and EC representation from states that deny rights to their citizens. Anywhere from 25-50% of these can be removed for 10 years. If applied to the current situation where election fraud denies the rights of legal voters, you would have blue states handing Republicans big majorities for 10 years. I'm not sure on all the mechanics, but the President has pretty wide latitude with this, the EO he signed, the Insurrection Act, the Militia Act, etc.
It targets foreign actors, or, and this matters, anyone connected to foreign actors. So, let's say you get caught helping a Chinese company steal votes. Even if you are a US citizen, because of that connection, you, your business, etc. are liable to sanction under the EO.
This may be why the TX case is the main strategy for the "non-kinetic" remedy to the stolen election. I think Ted Cruz and Jay Sekulow, knowing the Constitution and SCOTUS methodology, crafted this perfectly. Meaning, not only would the court have to throw out the constitution to find for the defendants, but they would have to overturn their own precedents as well. Bravo!
Hopefully it won't matter. I think ACB being in on Bush v. Gore is significant beyond just being on "our side." She saw the vote stealing attempted by Gore during that fiasco and now is at the center of a hurricane of fraud. Prayers for wisdom and constitutionality for her and the others.
The presidential election was designed to be mix. Legislatures would select electors who were envisioned as distinguished citizens: listen to their neighbors and popular opinion; listen to their state gov't; then make up their own mind. Helping this along was the presidency was never envisioned to be as activist as it is now, making the selection of the president a much less "winner take all" contest.
The founders never thought of the executive branch as the master of a vast regulatory state. They never would have dreamed of the president taking the lead role in the budgetary process or legislative priorities. All of that was supposed to be done by Congress. The president was simply supposed to provide general leadership and execute the laws and policies of congress. The president only took a leading role in emergencies like war or other disasters.
I like the overall plan, it lets everyone chicken out and Trump still wins. TX's filing specifically says it doesn't want SCOTUS to pick the winner, which they fear being accused of, but just send the decision back to the legislatures. The legislatures then get the pick Trump's electors because "SCOTUS told us to". It's sad that you have to give everyone the coward's way out, but it works.
The problem with defining secession is "for" slavery is that it's complicated. I don't say that as an out, it just was. 7 state seceded initially after Lincoln's election, SC was just one of them. They specifically mention slavery as rationale. My state, FL, was third and didn't mention it at all. 4 more states joined after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops. Their rationale was the US gov't shouldn't compel states to stay in the Union. One of my favorite quotes from this phase was Tennessean who voted first to stay in the Union, then after Sumter voted TN out because "Lincoln... made a rebel out of me." 4 more slave states opted to stay in the Union. Also, some of the leading rebels, Davis, Lee, were actually opposed to secession and only supported it once it had become fact. It's super complicated, much more than the single paragraph in most history books give it.
I've actually thought this. If you're Trump, and you know these machines are tainted, why let them run another election like the last one? You know they'll cheat. He will have to do something to guarantee security even if it's just station the military at all the counting places and oversee every little detail.