General Discussion

WillowTree

(5,350 posts)

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

Reply to brooklynite (Reply #64)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:17 PM

Mar 2017

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

200 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 2016 election must be nullified [View all] Zoonart Mar 2017 OP

How in the Sam Hell are you going to constitutionally annul a presidential election? longship Mar 2017 #1

Not mad, I assure you. Zoonart Mar 2017 #5

Please prove a constitutional provision is needed or please stop this RWTP uponit7771 Mar 2017 #23

Just read your damned constitution. longship Mar 2017 #76

Post removed Post removed Mar 2017 #83

They didn't see it. That's why it's not in the constitution. longship Mar 2017 #84

Yes, agreed. TeapotInATempest Mar 2017 #100

Lots of things aren't specifically in the Constitution, but Alice11111 Mar 2017 #179

The constitution is very clear on how a president is elected. longship Mar 2017 #182

I'm not saying we shouldn't resist, but challenge him in Alice11111 Mar 2017 #183

It is too late. No ex post facto laws. longship Mar 2017 #186

I do not think ex post facto applies in this case. Alice11111 Mar 2017 #187

They all would be ex post facto laws. longship Mar 2017 #191

How do you think we got the thousands of case laws that Alice11111 Mar 2017 #192

Read YOUR'S!!! There's NOTHING restricting a redo ... NOTHING !! There's provisions and a right uponit7771 Mar 2017 #113

Damn it! The Constitution specifically prescribes how a president is elected!!! longship Mar 2017 #125

We agree on the prescribing but not a restriction uponit7771 Mar 2017 #164

No! It is you that claims no restrictions! Incorrectly, I might add. longship Mar 2017 #166

Please link and quote the constitution restricting congress to make a law for another prez election uponit7771 Mar 2017 #167

No Ex post facto!!!! longship Mar 2017 #169

So I'll take this answer to be there is no restriction of congress making a law setting another DATE uponit7771 Mar 2017 #170

I've updated my response. longship Mar 2017 #171

There's also nothing in the Constitution....... WillowTree Mar 2017 #161

See my posts above, esp Ex post facto. longship Mar 2017 #172

Totally agree. I suspect that your last comment was meant to be directed to someone else. WillowTree Mar 2017 #174

Possibly. The thread is getting fairly full. longship Mar 2017 #175

True that. No offense taken at all. WillowTree Mar 2017 #177

No offense intended. longship Mar 2017 #181

See my post 2 above on a challenge Alice11111 Mar 2017 #180

Is the situation were reversed, Republicans would already be working in it. VOX Mar 2017 #68

This post is refreshing. Thank you, NT Morris64 Mar 2017 #145

What part of the Constitution contains the "Do Over" provision? FSogol Mar 2017 #2

None Zoonart Mar 2017 #4

What part of the constitution addresses Trump and his criminal enterprise? ecstatic Mar 2017 #14

High Crimes and Misdemeanors? forthemiddle Mar 2017 #75

Congress decides what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. truebluegreen Mar 2017 #78

The SCOTUS had no trouble bending the guidelines of the Constitution in 2000 by appointing Bush or INdemo Mar 2017 #197

Please prove that one is needed or stop this RWTP of constitution standing in the way uponit7771 Mar 2017 #22

Oh vey truebluegreen Mar 2017 #79

What utter asinine bullshit mythology Mar 2017 #101

Nope, proffering that there's a restriction to doing something in the constitution when there's not uponit7771 Mar 2017 #109

That's definitely what SHOULD happen, but there's no way for it to actually happen. Vinca Mar 2017 #3

I wonder how the electoral college would have voted today given what's come out. Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2017 #7

Yes there is, there's no one who said congress can't make a law to do so uponit7771 Mar 2017 #24

Any such law would be unconstitutional. Not to mention that it would have to be retroactive. WillowTree Mar 2017 #27

No it wont, there's NOTHING in the constitution RESTRICTING a redo. It allows for the original vote uponit7771 Mar 2017 #30

The Constitution outlines how a President is elected and placed in office. WillowTree Mar 2017 #39

There's NOTHING restricting a redo either, there's nothing in the constitution restricting me from uponit7771 Mar 2017 #112

Dream on. WillowTree Mar 2017 #121

Vey iz mir cloudbase Mar 2017 #200

Presumably you think the repubs could pass a law requiring Ruth Ginsburg to be reconfirmed or onenote Mar 2017 #87

There are ALREADY laws on the books for her to lose their seats and congress can set more and uponit7771 Mar 2017 #114

The Constitution expressly states that the President's term is four years. onenote Mar 2017 #126

If the election was nulified by law of congress then make a new one, but this is a red herring.... uponit7771 Mar 2017 #130

Again -- where is there any law that says a Supreme Court justice loses her seat if she commits onenote Mar 2017 #129

Strawman, that's not the question at hand ... good try though uponit7771 Mar 2017 #131

The question at hand is this: onenote Mar 2017 #135

OK, now you're interjecting precision that wasn't there before... TERM is another issue which is uponit7771 Mar 2017 #147

Sure, Congress could set a new "election" for tomorrow. tritsofme Mar 2017 #184

Uh FYI Congress can't "make a law" truebluegreen Mar 2017 #81

I would fight to the death against ANY extra-constitutional removal of ANY president Foamfollower Mar 2017 #6

That is why we will loose. Zoonart Mar 2017 #8

You want the Constitution to "grow" -- then go through the amendment process onenote Mar 2017 #16

Of course that would be great. Zoonart Mar 2017 #19

We don't have the luxury of pretending the Constitution doesn't exist. onenote Mar 2017 #20

You are correct onenote Hokie Mar 2017 #185

Oh good lord mythology Mar 2017 #104

Congress can MAKE a law for it to happen, its a RWTP that the constitution is in the way uponit7771 Mar 2017 #25

See #27. WillowTree Mar 2017 #29

Saw 27, nothing in 27 address's restriction of a redo uponit7771 Mar 2017 #31

You can't make a law retroactive to include past events. Exilednight Mar 2017 #74

Not the point, the point is people are intimating there's a restriction in the constitution that uponit7771 Mar 2017 #110

We can't, by any legal means, have a redo. Exilednight Mar 2017 #194

Can Congress make a law stripping Ruth Ginsburg of her SCOTUS seat? onenote Mar 2017 #88

Yes, there already are laws doing such... she gets convicted of murder she's stripped of her seat uponit7771 Mar 2017 #111

where do find that in the Constitution or in any statute passed by Congress? onenote Mar 2017 #122

No member of the USSC is above the law, that's a low hanging fruit answer no? uponit7771 Mar 2017 #123

And that's why they can be impeached. onenote Mar 2017 #124

Red herring, you're question was regarding stripping not HOW it was stripped ... you're ad homs uponit7771 Mar 2017 #128

Sorry but I have no idea what your message is trying to say. onenote Mar 2017 #132

You're using the word removal widely and not stating ALL of my position which includes impeaching uponit7771 Mar 2017 #142

If this thread is about impeachment, then why is there so much in it about a "re-do" of the election onenote Mar 2017 #146

No, no red herring the thinking is how to get RID of the current president and that's to impeach uponit7771 Mar 2017 #150

It's not that you're argument doesn't have low probability. It's that its wrong as a matter of law. onenote Mar 2017 #151

Ok, impeach sitting prez and for being an asshole (which sounds good) & not being duly elected .... uponit7771 Mar 2017 #154

Flaws in your approach are many onenote Mar 2017 #160

Last question, the rest of the term of the first ... nothing restriicting a law to be made describin uponit7771 Mar 2017 #165

Fail again. onenote Mar 2017 #176

the coup already happened.. JHan Mar 2017 #58

Look at all those silly MFM008 Mar 2017 #85

I suggested amendment as the process and the OP rejected it. onenote Mar 2017 #89

The only thing right would be for staying within the constitution... BUT halobeam Mar 2017 #9

I would not be so sure of that... Zoonart Mar 2017 #11

We have a political court...and your post makes no sense. Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #15

If there was a "workaround" the Constitution acceptable to both parties onenote Mar 2017 #91

Yeah, Good Luck With That... JimGinPA Mar 2017 #10

I am NOT a Republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Zoonart Mar 2017 #12

I Certainly Didn't Mean To Imply You Were... JimGinPA Mar 2017 #41

It won't happen. Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #13

So.... capitulation Zoonart Mar 2017 #17

Reality bites. truebluegreen Mar 2017 #82

As you said, it would be extraconstitutional, and therefore MineralMan Mar 2017 #18

I know you are right... Zoonart Mar 2017 #21

There is no Hail Mary clause in the Constitution, either. MineralMan Mar 2017 #26

except the election was a scam. triron Mar 2017 #120

No it wont, congress can simply make a law since there's nothing in the constitution saying that it uponit7771 Mar 2017 #28

Please share your Constitutional Law bonafides... brooklynite Mar 2017 #36

Appeal to authority, I could care less if your RGB herself you'd still be wrong there's nothing in.. uponit7771 Mar 2017 #115

The Constitution says a president holds office "during the term of four years" onenote Mar 2017 #137

Unless they're impeached which could be just for being an asshole ... including his VP and SOTH uponit7771 Mar 2017 #143

Um, no. Congress just can't "make a law.". nt msanthrope Mar 2017 #67

They do it all the time for special prosecution, or are we sword smithing here for the sake of ... uponit7771 Mar 2017 #117

You are apparently just making stuff up Foamfollower Mar 2017 #168

correct. nt TheFrenchRazor Mar 2017 #155

Yeah, I know its wishful thinking but there's a slight chance which I'm willing to take uponit7771 Mar 2017 #156

Couldn't they create MFM008 Mar 2017 #86

No. SCOTUS can only adjudicate MineralMan Mar 2017 #90

YES !!! There's nothing RESTRICTING them from doing so. There's no "ONLY" for a date regarding ... uponit7771 Mar 2017 #118

Nope; not how we do things here. brooklynite Mar 2017 #32

democrats are not in power and 2018 is the soonest anything can be changed, better to make beachbum bob Mar 2017 #33

TIME IS RUNNING OUT. Zoonart Mar 2017 #35

Agree that a reelection should and could be done. ladjf Mar 2017 #34

Explain how brooklynite Mar 2017 #37

Precedent Zoonart Mar 2017 #60

State Elections are not addressed by the Constitution; Federal Elections are brooklynite Mar 2017 #64

I have yet to see any evidence that Zoonart cares what the Constitution does or doesn't allow. WillowTree Mar 2017 #69

The Senate was the only body that could nullify it, and they did not Recursion Mar 2017 #38

I will give you the benefit of the doubt GulfCoast66 Mar 2017 #40

Not mad, I assure you. Zoonart Mar 2017 #43

It means America elected a very bad leader GulfCoast66 Mar 2017 #50

No one's going to agree to an extra-Constitutional solution, no matter how warranted it might seem. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2017 #42

We would have to convene a Constitutional convention or have someone in Congress Tatiana Mar 2017 #44

Except it can't be and it won't be. (n/t) Iggo Mar 2017 #45

You are probably right about that. Zoonart Mar 2017 #46

No way out of it but through it. (n/t) Iggo Mar 2017 #47

If impeachment isn't it, how exactly would this "do-over" happen onenote Mar 2017 #93

Constitutional Convention Now! AngryAmish Mar 2017 #48

Yeah. 'Cause that would take less than 4 years. WillowTree Mar 2017 #49

And probably done with the First Amendment and who knows what else onenote Mar 2017 #95

Fucking hell no!!!! Initech Mar 2017 #107

Yeah I can't see anything wrong going with this plan. YoungDemCA Mar 2017 #51

On another front, you say "Democrats.......must stop the hearings for the SCOTUS nominee." WillowTree Mar 2017 #52

Refuse to participate... Zoonart Mar 2017 #54

And you honestly believe that would stop the Rs from pushing the nomination through? WillowTree Mar 2017 #56

I do not... Zoonart Mar 2017 #57

I have a couple of bridges you might be interested in purchasing onenote Mar 2017 #96

No constitutional mechanism get the red out Mar 2017 #53

The only way I see it it iis if they invoke the "unable to perform his duties CTyankee Mar 2017 #55

And even if they did, they'd still need votes comparable to an impeachment vote to make it stick onenote Mar 2017 #97

At this rate it won't be too long before even the repubs see he's not in his right mind CTyankee Mar 2017 #199

I remember the Nixon Impeachment proceedings and his evential resignation INdemo Mar 2017 #59

It's a far different situation onenote Mar 2017 #98

I dont necessarly mean Impeachment..Just when/if there is enough evidence INdemo Mar 2017 #195

All of this shit could have been prevented liquid diamond Mar 2017 #61

Sad but true Zoonart Mar 2017 #62

Don't think so I don't belirve Donald Trump really wanted this job. INdemo Mar 2017 #196

I know he didn't want this job. liquid diamond Mar 2017 #198

Emotionally I'm right there with you Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2017 #63

I understand that I am making na emotional argument. Zoonart Mar 2017 #65

You're calling for a revolution zipplewrath Mar 2017 #66

I am not calling for a revolution. Zoonart Mar 2017 #70

Brighter minds zipplewrath Mar 2017 #72

Counter-revolution, to be fair. VOX Mar 2017 #71

They did it at the ballot box zipplewrath Mar 2017 #73

Can we just stop with the magical thinking? truebluegreen Mar 2017 #77

"it is extra-constitutional" No. It is unconstitutional. And therefore cannot be done. yellowcanine Mar 2017 #80

Won't happen and extra-constitutional is another way of saying illegal steve2470 Mar 2017 #92

Actually it CAN be done. Even the Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God. caroldansen Mar 2017 #94

Jeezus H Crimminy. This isn't about faith. It's about law. onenote Mar 2017 #99

Even if there was a mechanism for that the Republicans would quash it. No chance in hell. Kablooie Mar 2017 #102

I don't think nullification is extra-Constitutional, it enforces our rights under the Constitution. L. Coyote Mar 2017 #103

There is no such thing as an electoral mulligan. WillowTree Mar 2017 #105

And yet, the Court has advanced just such a case. L. Coyote Mar 2017 #106

The Court did no such thing. WillowTree Mar 2017 #108

As many of us predicted with great certainty that it would be. onenote Mar 2017 #139

Exactly. Never considered at all, let alone 'advanced'. WillowTree Mar 2017 #149

+1 uponit7771 Mar 2017 #119

strangely enough, the founders DID present a remedy for this situation 0rganism Mar 2017 #116

Yeah, why not.. delisen Mar 2017 #157

It's about come to that hasn't it? triron Mar 2017 #159

I so agree gopiscrap Mar 2017 #127

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously" Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #133

Interesting thought. HOW could this be done? Is it even possible? NurseJackie Mar 2017 #134

It can't be and won't be. onenote Mar 2017 #140

As I expected. (Thanks.) NurseJackie Mar 2017 #144

IMO best case is we're stuck with Pence & Ryan, unless they've colluded or knew about Russians. Sunlei Mar 2017 #136

No thank you. I prefer constitutional solutions. aikoaiko Mar 2017 #138

+1 onenote Mar 2017 #141

If this were possible, YES. I think it would be wise Kimchijeon Mar 2017 #148

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2017 #152

It absolutely should be but it won't be :( arthritisR_US Mar 2017 #153

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2017 #189

Apparently you don't fully understand that we have no mechanism PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #158

We are politically the descendents of people who turned to natural law to delisen Mar 2017 #163

The founders organized a Revolution, PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #173

I applaud your suggestion.Governments/civilizations fall when the people no longer believe in them delisen Mar 2017 #162

I'd love to do that. But are we really able to pass a constitutional amendment? mvd Mar 2017 #178

It's needs to be done but I don't see people doing what's necessary. Hugo24601 Mar 2017 #188

K and R. Attack and challenge every way possible. Alice11111 Mar 2017 #190

so . . . you are calling for a coup . . . got it DrDan Mar 2017 #193