Robert Reich's proposal: ANNULMENT of Trump's presidency.

[Grasswire2]

ANNULMENT OF THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Suppose Robert Mueller comes up with overwhelming evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to become President, and that, were it not for Russia’s actions during the election, Trump would not have been elected. In other words, Trump’s presidency is not authorized under the United States Constitution.

Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate would remove Trump from office. This would remedy Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But impeachment would not remedy Trump’s unconstitutional presidency because it would leave in place his vice president, White House staff and Cabinet, as well as all the executive orders he issued and all the legislation he signed, and the official record of his presidency.

The only way to respond to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of an unconstitutional president’s appointments and executive actions, and would eliminate the official record of the presidency. Annulment would recognize that all such appointments, actions, and records were made without constitutional authority.

The Constitution does not specifically provide for annulment of an unconstitutional presidency. But read as a whole, the Constitution leads to the logical conclusion that annulment is the appropriate remedy for one.

After all, the Supreme Court can declare legislation that doesn’t comport with the Constitution null and void. It would logically follow that the Court could declare all the legislation and executive actions of a presidency unauthorized by the Constitution to be null and void.

The Constitution also gives Congress and the states the power to amend the Constitution, thereby annulling or altering whatever provisions came before. Here, too, it would logically follow that Congress and the states could, through amendment, annul the actions of a presidency they determine to be unconstitutional.

I am not suggesting that constitutional annulment of the Trump presidency is likely. I am only arguing that, in the face of overwhelming evidence that his presidency was never authorized under the Constitution, there are ample grounds for arguing it should and can be annulled.

From his FB notes.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. "The Constitution does not specifically provide for annulment...."

There is that problem.

[brush]

24. We have to admit the Constitution is not perfect and fix it.

This and the Electoral College should be at the top of the list for adjustment.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

26. There's a procedure for that. A few, actually, including one I'd rather not contemplate. NT

[brush]

33. I know it has to go thru state legislatures but we need to start raising the issue...

to get the public conditioned to it.

This trump debacle is a perfect opportunity to get it before the public consciousness.

[WhiteTara]

112. You know,the Kochs are only a few states away from a constitutional

convention. Maybe it could be hijacked as they want to do it soon.

[onetexan]

93. Agree, it was written 231 years ago so the forefathers would not have been able to

foresee/envision the technological advances, economic, social and cultural developments that have taken place since then. I believe the American Constitution should be an amendable document, as it is currently. If there is no precedent for a case, Congress should establish precedence.
In this case this illegitimate president presents a clear and present danger to the country and to the free world. This alone should warrant amending our rule of law and the Constitution so that such a situation (wherein we have a traitor holding the highest office of the nation) never occurs again.

[marble falls]

121. I know: we get to fix an amendment, they get to fix an amendmet. We don't need to "fix" the ...

Constitution, we need to write laws that meet Constitutional muster.

[brush]

122. Fix, amend, adjust...whatever word choice we use we know the document...

doesn't cover how to get rid of a rogue, traitor president so we need to fix, amend or adjust it.

[wasupaloopa]

32. The Constitution did not say SCOTUS could pick

the president in 2000.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

34. The Constitution does not say anything about same-sex marriage.

The Constitution does not say anything about school integration.

The Constitution does not say anything about the internet.

The Constitution does not say anything about....

So what's your point?

[brooklynite]

55. ...and they didn't

SCOTUS can and did rule on the right of a State to make it’s Constitutionally mandated allocation of Electors.

[stopbush]

59. Not a problem. There are centuries of case law, SCOTUS decisions etc

that are not enumerated in the Constitution but which are considered to be an extension and clarification of the Constitution.

[manor321]

2. LOL. NO

A swing and a miss by Reich.

[grantcart]

80. If you are referring to Reich, then yes and not the first time.

It is a simple binary proposition.

Are we a nation of laws.

All of the remedies for the current situation have legal remedies.

If you start advocating for extra Constitutional approaches now then you have to accept them when we are in power.

Take the House and impeach, allow the judicial remedies to take their course of action.

[druidity33]

107. Well...

The Constitution allows for amending the Constitution. That's part of our "nation of laws" as you put it. A document over 200 years old actually demands adjustment. Why is there such a strong push to not consider that?

[grantcart]

117. For the rather obvious reason that using costitutional methods

Are, while very high are achievable, while ammending the constitution are much higher and not realistically reachable

Then there is the most obvious reason: any extra constitutional method that is agreed to will likely be used against us in the future.

[druidity33]

120. I think I was pretty clear...

and I really don't understand your response to my post. Sorry.

[struggle4progress]

91. +

[Quemado]

3. I agree with this idea, but

the effort to undergo the annulment would so messy.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Yes, we wouldn't want to have a mess going on in our country.

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2018, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[triron]

37. ha, ha, good one.

[underthematrix]

4. Annulment is a very real possibility and it also hints at what would happen after Trump is indicted.

[onenote]

123. Annulment is not a very real possibility. It's total fiction.

[SergeStorms]

133. We thought a Trump presidency...

was total fiction as well. Until it happened. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

[Cheviteau]

140. Not Really

If it is proven that Trump was elected with the aid and assistance of a foreign power, annulment certainly would be in order. What you are suggesting is that we can be forced into governmental laws and rules foisted upon us by a foreign adversary. I am of the opinion that Trump is a full-fledged agent of Russia. If I am correct, and it is proven, then the only logical remedy is a complete and total annulment of his every official signature. And, btw, Pence was elected on the same ticket. That makes him ineligible to advance to the presidency.

[onenote]

143. It's fiction because there is no "annulment" process in the constitution

We're a nation of laws and that means when the law is broken, we follow the law to fix it. We don't make up something on the spot. There is a process for removing the president -- it's called impeachment. And how would annulment work? Would every law signed by Trump be nullified? Would the government shut down because there is no budget? It's an absurd idea.

[ffr]

5. I'm behind this 100%.

100%

[BigmanPigman]

43. DITTO!

I wish, I wish.........in a perfect world it would happen in a heartbeat.

Annul the SCOTUS, the GOP laws (like tax cuts, ACA dismantling), agreements with our foreign allies and enemies, executive orders, the entire cabinet and what they have done, etc.

[Democrats_win]

6. Are there limitations on what can be amended by constitutional amendment?

I think there are things that can't be amended such as the dreadful 2 senators per state rule.

But this annulment idea is great because it would remove his wingnut judges and end his bad-idea tax cuts.

On edit I googled for an answer:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/unamendable.html

It's not entirely black and white.

[unblock]

12. through the amendment process almost anything is possible, including annulment

but good luck getting it ratified given how much cooperation from republicans it would take.

[2naSalit]

7. This...

...in the face of overwhelming evidence that his presidency was never authorized under the Constitution, there are ample grounds for arguing it should and can be annulled.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

25. That statement isnt remotely true

The popular vote doesn't matter. It never mattered. The Electoral College vote matters. The Electors voted trump in. The vote was certified by Congress and the trump was sworn in. Constitutionally he is the President. There is no argument to this.

[zipplewrath]

54. Emotional response

All of these things are driven by emotions. People don't want to acknowledge that Trump is the President of the United States. I understand why, but all these declarations of "he's not my president" are just emotional. He may not be "your" president, but he is THE president. There wasn't a single Russian agent in the EC. They were all legal chosen by their states and accepted by the federal branch. There was nothing "unconstitutional" about it. Yeah, there were alot of "dirty tricks" to get this guy elected. Some were even illegal. That's nothing new and the constitution has provisions to deal with it. None of them were utilized. So on we go.

Vote in November. That'll be the start of "fixing" this mess.

[LuvNewcastle]

111. Yes, annulment is a fantasy.

I'm a little surprised to see Robert Reich writing about this. Reich doesn't usually write bedtime stories.

There won't be any kind of easy fix for the mess we're in today. If Trump is indicted and refuses to show up in court, who will arrest him? The military might get involved, and that scares me almost as much as Trump serving out his term. It's a sad state of affairs and if Trump continues to act as he has thus far, it's going to be a very ugly scene.

[bucolic_frolic]

66. Thanks for the Republican Talking Point ignoring cheating, thievery, statistical voting abnormality

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

87. Point out where any of that happened in the Electoral College

Because if any of your points are in regard to the vote that occurred in Nov 2016, then it doesnt matter. Constitutionally our votes do not elect the President. The popular vote doesn't matter. The states chose their Electors through their own processes and the Electoral College voted for President. That is the only vote that matters.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

134. from whence do these magic Electors spring?

I've heard rumors that there are states who choose their Electors via a method popularly known as "winner take all", somehow related to ordinary citizen voters.

Hypothetically, if ordinary citizen voters were defrauded, Electoral College Electors were improperly assigned by the states. Something, something, fruit of the poisonous tree, something or other.

While it doesn't have much hope of ever happening in this world, the annulment Mr. Reich muses about is not precluded by the Constitution.

[Grasswire2]

8. thousands of shares and comments on his FB OP already

He should have added a poll.

[Dave Starsky]

9. And if Grandma had balls, she'd be Grandpa.

I love Robert Reich, but the current makeup of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and the timeframes involved, make this so impossible that it's not even worth talking about, even if 20% percent of the population still hadn't lost their minds.

[cutroot]

10. It would provide an elegant and gracious solution to this madness

I am not scared. Let's do it.

[mythology]

11. Ignoring the obvious unconstitutional nature of this

There's also the problem of there is no obvious measure to determine what the impact of Russian influence efforts were. It wasn't a single event. You can point to a specific event like the second Comey announcement where Clinton's poll numbers dropped to enough to lose the election. But was she only 6 points ahead at that point because of Russian efforts, the 30 year hatefest Republicans have had for her, because Trump spoke to racial animus and racism, because sexism, because bsd campaign tactics, because of media coverage, because of how hard it is for one party to win 3 elections in a row, because of the economy continuing to be disparate in the recovery?

You can't make a credible claim that the Russian efforts alone were sufficient. There is still exactly zero evidence that votes were changed after being cast. There is plenty of evidence, including actual recounts, that says votes weren't changed after being cast.

It's pie in the sky fantasy on Reich's part.

[Tiggeroshii]

13. Wishful thinking

Unfortunately

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. One way or another it needs annulment. Gorsuch retracted & Kavanaugh denied would be a start.

Following McCONnell, no judicial confirmations in this the final year of tRump's presidency.

[bigbrother05]

15. Maybe indicting Trump would fast track to SCOTUS and this be the argument

His actions violated the Constitution, therefore does not legally hold the office and has to face charges

If Cavanagh gets on the bench, it would never go through. Gorsuch wouldn't go for it and it's unlikely Roberts would either if it's an 8 member court.

[2naSalit]

27. Gorsuch should have to recuse himself at that point...nt

[WillowTree]

31. Holding your breath for that to happen are you?

[2naSalit]

35. NO need for snark just because you don't agree...nt

[WillowTree]

47. It's not a matter of not agreeing, and it's not a matter of snark.

It's just the reality that he'd never recuse himself.

All this foolish pipe-dreaming is pointless.

[2naSalit]

125. Whatever. Have a nice day...nt

[unblock]

16. if you had the votes, you could annul each action more directly.

if we had the presidency and a majority in the house and 2/3rds of the senate, then we could impeach and remove all donnie's appointments and reverse all his laws and executive orders.

but best we'll get is the house and maybe a bare minimum majority in the senate, and a different republican president, at least until 2021. nothings getting annulled. we don't have the votes and there's no way enough republicans would ever stand up and do the right thing when they can do the partisan thing instead.

[Vinca]

17. It works for me.

[calimary]

135. For me as well.

Even though I’d be seriously shocked if it actually happened.

It SHOULD happen, though. Fitting deterrent to future scoundrels who might think twice before trying to cheat to this extreme.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

18. The country was defrauded. Courts have authority to enact remedies. I'd like to see Constitutional

scholars debate this issue.

[brooklynite]

48. How was the Country defrauded?

[Cognitive_Resonance]

85. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you recall the Russian hackers indicted in February were charged

with: "Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016."

It's not a stretch that coming indictments will charge U.S. persons referenced as "known and unknown to the Grand Jury" with defrauding the United States.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Good idea.

Our side really needs to start thinking and acting outside the box.

[WillowTree]

20. These suggestions of extra-constitutional ways to be rid of Trump get more hilarious all the time.

Impeachment/Conviction.......25th Amendment.....PERIOD.

[Nitram]

22. Never happen unless Democrats had a super-majority in both houses and a majority

on the Supreme Court

[WillowTree]

29. I'd bet money that it wouldn't even get past a Left-majority Supreme Court.

Do you really think that Justice Ginsburg or Justice Kagan would vote to violate the Constitution for political reasons?

[Nitram]

145. No, you're right. It's a silly idea.

[MineralMan]

23. If it's not in the Constitution, it ain't happening.

Focus, please.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

36. After seeing one thread after another along these lines, I suspect that far too many DUers

skipped school every day the year that they were scheduled to take Civics.

[MineralMan]

45. The people suggesting such stuff are not serious people who

understand much of anything, really. They're just fantasizing randomly. When you don't know what's possible, everything seems possible.

Mostly, I just ignore those threads. That's probably the best response, really.

[Pacifist Patriot]

139. Agreed

And even things that are constitutionally possible are, in reality, astronomically unlikely politically. We can't hang our hats on those remedies either.

[Nasruddin]

51. Even Donald Trump

Even Donald Trump agrees that the consitution is not a suicide pact.

[dalton99a]

28. Kick

[bearsfootball516]

30. For the millionth time, it's not happening.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

41. Forget it, Jake; it's Chinatown.

[NurseJackie]

38. This is one of the more compelling arguments I've read on this subject.

[Grasswire2]

42. I think a more likely scenario is that Donald starts a war...

....or pulls a false flag terror incident. That's his ace.

[Mad-in-Mo]

39. It may not happen,

but there would still be a lot of support for this kind of thinking.

[cab67]

40. We have to be realistic.

There's no way this could happen, however nice it would be.

That being said, there's going to be a real need for hard-core de-trumpification after he's out of office. His successor's first act should be to reverse most of his executive orders.

[Nasruddin]

50. Realistically,

"first act should be to reverse most of his executive orders."
We can't continue this kind of government by tidal wave. We need a new system.

[cab67]

115. I don't disagree.

[brooklynite]

44. I expect more sense from a former Cabinet official...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

49. Yale Law, too. I looked it up. He really ought to know better. NT

[duforsure]

46. I agree

A total illegitimate President installed by a foreign enemy. Everything he has done should be changed back.

[Karadeniz]

52. Reich is Right

It would be perfect if all the lawyers could come up with a way to have the entire campaign declared illegal. It has always bugged me that Trump might well be evicted, but his henchmen and the Republican agenda and what it's done will remain. It's not fair, not even close to perfect justice. If Trump, his down ballot, his Congress now have power because of illegal behavior, it's not just that Trump go but all his accessories continue on. The DoJ has constantly taken the safe interpretation of the voter effect of Russian interference as unprovable. That was then and up until now. However, if Trump's acquiescence, sanctioning of Russian interference, can be shown, then he conspired and his campaign was fraudulent. Everyone connected with the campaign...at least at the executive level...needs to go.

If a corporation can have the same rights as a person re: political contributions, then why can't a campaign also qualify as a person?

Why should a Little League baseball game be capable of more perfect justice than the American legal system? If it was shown that a single person on a little league team had played dishonestly, his/her team would be disqualified for that game.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

53. The only way that Kavanaugh is not going to end up on the Supreme Court is

for an armada of flying saucers to crash into the Capitol just as the vote on his appointment is being held.

The Orange, Blue, and Silver Lines are really going to be a mess.

[FakeNoose]

56. Somebody suggested removing him by civil lawsuit

That would take it out of the criminal courts and political/impeachment realm altogether, would it not?

It would have to be done by a nonpolitical American organization with deep pockets, like the American Bar Association or similar. A civil lawsuit can be for reasons other than money damages, it can be to legally make something happen or stop something from happening. The civil courts have jury verdicts but it doesn't have to be unanimous, I think it just has to be a majority. (?)

The lawsuit could demand the resignation of Donald Trump, and show all the proof as reasons why he should resign. The burden of proof would be way lower for a civil case then it is for a criminal case.

Anybody else have ideas on this? I'm not a lawyer but I just read this suggestion in the last couple of days. I think it was on a twitter thread (or maybe it was on DU.)

[WillowTree]

60. Please cite the Constitutional passage that provides for this.

[brooklynite]

82. If the ACLU was dumb enough to,propose this, I'd cut off my financial support

There is NO civil claim you could make on th outcome of an election.

[wundermaus]

57. Nothing would be more just than for...

Hillary Clinton being sworn in as the legitimate President of the United States.
Trump committed fraud (TREASON) against the government and the people of the United States to seize the presidency.
Hillary Clinton is the honest winner of the presidential election and she should be sworn in as soon as he is convicted.

[WillowTree]

61. Please cite the Constitutional passage that provides for this.

[wundermaus]

84. Since we have not crossed this bridge before...

We may need a constitutional amendment.

What would you suggest as a remedy?

Would Pence becoming President be a just result?

I don't think so.

[WillowTree]

86. And you think a Constitutional amendment could be drafted and passed before the 2020 election?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

58. Dems have great ideas...and then Dems cripple each other with nit picking,

and why things cant be done that way. the point is to get by the next SCJ...ANYWAY we have to until we can fix this system. EVERYTIME we get a great Democrat w BIG brains...we have the usual cadre of "Democrats" who show up and say why that won't work. All we need is a good argument and a fair answer and we should go at it. The gop sticks together. Maybe we can learn a lesson? We have less than 90 days to figure out a path. One GREAT way of making sure this trump train keeps on rolling, is to BURY the folks who have new refreshing ideas. Reich and Tribe and a few others could mind-bust us out of this...if it weren't for the Naysayers in the party. We don't have a plethora of choices. Once kavanaugh is there...it's done. We already dont know how to remove gorsuch....but lets all sit around and bitch about non-perfect answers and make sure we nuke our way of life until the days we all die.
Being a nit picker doesnt make you smart. Im pretty sure Robert Reich has thought about things like..."Its not in the constitution' etc....The guys got more Blue in his veins than any ten of us on a good day. How's about we say yes to some stuff and start this muther rolling? This country isnt set in stone due to a paper written 200+ years ago. Esoecially when the forefathers never dreamt a president would be public enemy number 1. Just sayin. Juuuusssst sayin.

[WillowTree]

65. So you're saying you think the Constitution is a nit-pick?

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

67. I think i addressed that.

[WillowTree]

73. Where?

Every "suggestion" that's getting floated, and all that have been floated since November 9, 2016, involve ignoring the provisions of the Constitution in one way or another. Every.......one. You're asserting that all those of us who point out that there is no provision that would be sanctioned under the terms of the Constitution to accomplish removing Trump from the Presidency other than impeachment, using the 25th amendment in some way or waiting for him to be voted out in 2020 are nit-picking.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

77. I made my "comment", This isnt a research site...its a discussion, take the good leave the bad

Im not here to argue w you. Kinda as per the post you are referring to. Have a good Thursday.

[NRaleighLiberal]

69. I always find it fascinating to watch. this thread itself is like a ping pong game - back and forth

[MarcA]

105. Good Points. Don't know about annulment as GOP would still be in power (Congress).

Pence and/or GOP could simply declare they got rid of the crazy guy and
they would do it right this time. They could even put the same guys
back on the SCOTUS and like-minded judges on lower courts. I am more
concerned about what happens if they pass more laws and rules limiting
voting while maintaining our Peculiar Institutions of the Electoral College
and undemocratic Senate. Too often laws and Institutions (even Constitutional
ones) don't protect people; just look at our own history. I do agree when we
get new ideas on DU we get the usual Mount Olympus and Moses types on
here to put everyone in their place.

[honest.abe]

63. Although this is a huge stretch and will not happen but its does seem appropriate..

given the circumstances.

You would think our constitution would allow for an annulment if after the fact it was determined to be a sham election and the winner won by cheating especially given the cheater was assisted by a foreign country.

[bucolic_frolic]

64. This IS the CRUX of the matter!!! All Trump actions are illegitimate

if he cheated to get elected! So are his judicial appointees!!

Annulment is the solution. Why do we have to live with the consequences of theft? Courts reverse illegal actions all the time.

Robert Reich brings more brainpower to the table than anyone

[bearsfootball516]

68. Because he was legally voted for by the electors.

Legally sworn in, etc. Voters may have been influenced, but the process from the electors voting to him being sworn in were entirely legal. There's nothing that can be done about that.

[bucolic_frolic]

74. THere is no present mechanism to do something about that

Legitimacy however, can prompt change, and extraordinary measures outside what is permitted under the Constitution.

We are not limited to what the Constitution permits, or to what it prohibits.

The electors in a tainted election are not legitimate either, because the derivation of their power was crooked.

There is no sound basis for your position or logic. Stop with the Right Wing talking points!

[WillowTree]

78. "We are not limited to what the Constitution permits, or to what it prohibits." Just.....shocking.

[bearsfootball516]

79. We aren't limited to what the Constitution permits?

That's flat out wrong. And I'm not parroting right wing talking points. I'm laying down facts and not divulging into impossible fantasy.

[inwiththenew]

70. When you are not constrained by reality the solutions are unlimited

Unfortunately that's not how things work. Again like I said in another thread more masturbatory fantasy. There are real world solutions supported by established law and the Constitution to remedy the situation. We don't need to invent these fantastical scenarios that have next to no possibility one even happen or two being upheld by the courts.

[WillowTree]

75. "masturbatory fantasy"..........Gawd, that's sooooo appropriate!

[Dopers_Greed]

71. Yes.

And the next round of Democratic leaders should run on this.

[Liberalagogo]

72. I'm guessing something like this would require

a Constitutional Convention and a large vote over a decade or so.

The only reason something like this is not addressed in the Constitution is that the Founding Fathers would never dreamed of something like this nightmare we are in actually happening: that one major political party would become so EVIL and corrupt that it would have absolutely no honor at all and would do anything, including treason, to stay in power.

It's an elegant solution, but won't help in the here and now.

[mysteryowl]

76. Give that man an award.

[The Liberal Lion]

81. I agree

Impeachment is not the answer.

[rolypolychloe]

83. don't forget the judges

All of his appointments should be removed from office, fruit of the poison tree.

[brooklynite]

88. How about we just arbitrarily change the Constitution?

Just as legal and just as plausible.

[LanternWaste]

89. I'll listen to everyone pretending they know what they're talking about.

And take this for what it's worth. No less. No more.

And take it along with the faux-constitutional scholars I'm reading who have only to wear white wigs to make the absurdity one step more bemusing.

[fescuerescue]

92. If we can't impeach him...a well understood process

I doubt that we can annul him, a process which only exists in an opinion column.

Most other countries have a different term for this though. Overthrow and Revolution.

[FiveGoodMen]

94. "Overthrow and Revolution" sounds like what we've been experiencing for the last two years.

[fescuerescue]

132. In all seriousness no.

If that were true, Half of the people in the discussion would be dead, the other half in jail.

Revolution would be 10,000 times worse that what we are experiencing right now.

[FiveGoodMen]

141. Unless we're just in the early stages

[PBC_Democrat]

95. Almost as likely as ...

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Me getting mauled by a brown bear, a polar bear, bitten by a shark, and winning the lottery ... on the same day.

I wholeheartedly agree with the poster that recommended FOCUS!
That and GOTV efforts are the only remedy.

We need to take back the HoR in Nov and then lay the groundwork for taking back the Senate and the White House on 2020.

Then deliver on making life better for the middle class.

[Honeycombe8]

96. Finally...a possible solution to a stolen election! But the S.Ct. won't allow it (Kavanaugh). nt

[oasis]

97. NO PENCE! Not giving this guy a head start on 2020 elections. nt

[tclambert]

98. Who would have the authority to declare it annulled?

The Supreme Court? Congress? The current cowards won't even impeach the bastard. Even if the blue wave takes over control of both houses of Congress, will any Democrats have the balls to propose an annulment? There's a good chance they will chicken out on impeachment, let alone annulment.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

99. Wow. That's a whole lotta bullshit.

Reich should know better.

[jimlup]

100. Unfortunately, given the political sitation

Never minding how legitemate such an action might be it ain't gonna happen.

[Achilleaze]

101. #AnnulmentNow for the sake of American democracy

[House of Roberts]

102. I recall annulment of a marriage

required that the marriage hadn’t been consummated. Since right now I am feeling pretty consummated, I don’t think this is going to work.

[LakeArenal]

103. Oh please vote humans!!!!!

Change Congress and the world will heave a great sigh of relief.

[beachbum bob]

104. Pure fantasy, the constitution has what can be done, no such thing is possible and

Reich is sounding delusional

[Panich52]

106. Best benefit would be no Pence in Oval

Trump's a Q-nut himself but Pence is full-bore theocrat who also has idiotic economic ideas.

[usaf-vet]

108. If only! If only we could reverse this stolen election and it's results.

I would start by removing the entire Trump corrupt government. Starting with Trump and everybody he has appointed right down to the grounds keepers if necessary.

Then I would send the justice in the stolen SCOTUS seat back to the Federalist Society and Kavanaugh would just be a name in the history books under "could have been"

But I would not in the current Citizen United environment lobby for a Constitutional Convention. That is exactly what the Koch brothers and the Mercers and the other 1%ters want. A way to destroy the protections afforded to every American while at the same time adding additional powers to the 1%ters. They would simply overwhelm us all with billions of dollars to buy THEIR new CONstitution.

[proglib217]

110. Let's just make things up as we go along

As much as I'd love to see it, and as just as it would be, I can guarantee you it's never. gonna. happen.

[sarisataka]

113. And I also want

Nay, I DEMAND a unicorn

*sigh*
The Constitution is not that long of a document. I wish people would actually read it sometime.

[TalenaGor]

114. yes!!

[bucolic_frolic]

116. Someone will bring suit on this next year

If cheating is proven, if the vote count was tainted and the fraud unfairly won, stochastic echoes of illegitimacy are provable by logical argument. It would take our flexible Constitution to create a mechanism for reversing the consequences, but we've faced crises before. Acts of Congress, Presidential Commissions, Judicial Review ... it's not without possibilities. Not likely, but not impossible. A thorough Congressional review of everything Trump has done with revotes on everything in a new Congress would be in order, in my view. This path we're on is tainted.

[brooklynite]

130. Define a legal basis for a civil suit...

[onenote]

144. Who would have standing to sue?

Remember the birther controversy? Remember how suits were brought challenging Obama's eligibility to be president? Remember how each and every one was tossed on standing grounds?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

118. Amen, erase this mess. Nt

[ladjf]

119. I'm for trying it. It would be the quickest way to rid America of Trumps' illegal reign. nt

[onenote]

124. And after this ridiculous "annulment" occurs (how?) who is president?

And exactly what actions are annulled? Every piece of legislation signed by Trump, even those passed by a veto proof, bi-partisan majority? Every action taken by Trump appointees? Would the FCC rejection of the Sinclair-Tribune merger be reversed?

It's an extraordinarily silly idea.

[Raphe M]

126. Good Idea

But it won't happen, because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

[Beartracks]

127. If/when Dems get control of Congress, demand such boldness. No more...

... mamby-pamby water-under-the-bridge bygones stuff.

=========

[StarzGuy]

128. Yep

I do agree that the only way to undo this fraudulent instillation of this mob boss and his cronies along with all the damaging insults to our environment and constitution would be to declare trumps election null and void. Expunging all that has transpired. This would be a true renewal of the United States of America.

I suppose we can dream...

[karin_sj]

129. YES!!

This is the only reasonable and fair thing that can be done to in response to this illegitimate, illegal, and immoral presidency.

[lunamagica]

131. YES!!!

[MadDAsHell]

136. What does not authorized under the Constitution mean?

Is the Constitution that prescribed on what’s an “authorized Presidency” vs “unauthorized?”

Keep in mind these are the legislative bodies that debated the meaning of the word “is” in the late 90’s. I’m skeptical.

[rickford66]

137. Trump said there's 2nd Amendment remedies.

Just play his tape over and over.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

138. Annul the presidency. Impeach the #TrumpJudges

[coeur_de_lion]

142. I like the idea and I like Reich

But I don't think it's actually doable.

[Scurrilous]

146. K&R