General Discussion

longship

(40,416 posts)

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:55 PM

Mar 2017

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.

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