"There's no statute or specific provision of the Constitution that specifically authorizes

[Atticus]

it, so we can't do it---PERIOD!"

We hear that each time someone suggests anything beyond "voting Trump out" in 2020.

Couldn't (wasn't) the same scolding have been used to discourage:
---the Emancipation Proclamation?
---women voting?
---Brown vs Board of Education?
---the Voting Rights Act?
---the Civil Rights Act?
---gay marriage? Lily Ledbetter Act? Collective bargaining rights?-----is it really necessary to go on?

[ck4829]

1. K&R

https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

[htuttle]

2. Those things were all done through constitutional amendments or supreme court decisions

Frame what we want as one of those, and then we'd have a tool.

Right now, there isn't one other than impeachment, or Mueller trying to indict the President and throw it all into the right-wing courts.

[bearsfootball516]

4. People love to ignore this.

[Kilgore]

7. Because its not emotional

[Atticus]

5. "It is not enough that we do our best, sometimes we must do

what is required."---Winston Churchill.

[Jim Lane]

47. No, several of them were done by legislation

Steps forward like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Lily Ledbetter Act came about because they had the support of a majority in each house of Congress, and were then signed into law by the President.

Of course, even Congressional majorities plus the President can't override a provision of the Constitution. For example, the Constitution grants federal judges lifetime tenure unless impeached and convicted, with conviction requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate. The GOP could, by simple majorities, pass a bill for mandatory retirement of any federal judge diagnosed with cancer (bye, RBG), and Trump could sign it, but it would have no effect. Ginsburg would stay on the Court.

The same Constitution that grants Ginsburg lifetime tenure also grants Trump a four-year term. Ginsburg and Trump both have enemies, but those enemies can't just make up a new rule when they find the Constitution inconvenient.

[bitterross]

48. You are correct. Done within the framework of the Constitution.

I'm not a lawyer and I try not to get too far in over my head on these things. But seriously, it's fairly simple to see all of the things mentioned were done within the framework of the Constitution. They were all amendments, executive orders that were upheld by SCOTUS or SCOTUS decisions based on existing Constitutional sections or laws enacted by congress.

[ecstatic]

3. K& R! Nt

[manor321]

6. Jesus Christ these posts are ridiculous

If you want to cancel an election then you have to argue for a Constitutional Amendment that would implement the process. Good luck with that.

A simple law would not override the Constitution.

[Atticus]

9. Yeah, you are right. We are SO-O screwn! Should we just lay down now

or wait until Trump is crowned?

[bearsfootball516]

10. What should we do, in your opinion?

Because nothing you’ve suggested is actually possible.

[Atticus]

20. I was not aware I had made any specific suggestion beyond doing SOMETHING and

refusing to concede that our slide into fascism is inevitable. But, since you asked, the recent suggestion by Robert Reich---hardly a radical---that the last election be ANULLED could be given legal support by a SCOTUS willing to apply equitable maxims to the unprecedented predicament posed by an election determined by foreign criminal action and criminal complicity of the POTUS.

But, ANY remedy, ANY solution, STARTS with lots of good people getting royally pissed off and ACTING on that emotion. Neither Congress nor the SCOTUS would ignore a couple million pissed off citizen's camped on the mall. thanks

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. What is the mechanism for annulling an election ?

Does Pope Francis do it ?

[Atticus]

26. Snark always helps, is that it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. There is nothing wrong with a little levity, especially when the situation begs for it.

To put it in colloquial language, you wanna get rid of Trump, get Trump to quit or get Congress to impeach and convict him. Even in the outside chance Mueller indicts him he still gets a trial, and still to gets to be president while he's tried in court The ensuing litigation could easily last through 2020.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. What do you recommend we do to oust Donald Trump right now ?

What's the instrument, the blueprint ?

[EllieBC]

13. You do realize this could happen to us, right?

You don’t think that the GOP wouldn’t think twice to unseat a Democratic President? Be careful what you wish for.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. What, exactly, do you suggest we do?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. He's a little vague on that.

[NurseJackie]

19. Ain't THAT the truth?

But what's lacking in substance and plan-of-action, is more than made up for in emotionalism.

[jberryhill]

87. I don't know why people take the bait

[Codeine]

74. The fact that you don't understand

basic high school civics doesn’t make that straw man argument any less silly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. All of those things occurred as the result of court decisions, legislation,

or Constitutional amendments (except for the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order). But the issue that was raised is whether anything can be done to re-do or rescind the 2016 election, and the answer is still no. One reason for that is that any action that would create a process for rescinding the results of an election would probably have to be applied prospectively because retroactive laws are often found to be unconstitutional. Second, the only way to implement a redo procedure for federal elections would be by Constitutional amendment. These take years even if they ultimately succeed (and they rarely do). Consequently, by the time the amendment became effective another election would have taken place, rendering the proposed re-do moot.

[Igel]

44. And moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation

was issued by the CiC of the army in a conquered and occupied territory, and it applied no further than that and only for the duration of the occupation.

We needed a Constitutional Amendment to make it nationwide and permanent.

It's like that "40 acres and a mule," a wartime order given by a general in a specific area of the occupied territory, done at least partly to get refugees from following his forces and consuming his men's provisions. Remove the context and suddenly there's some huge precedent for doing anything in violation of the Constitution, even as we claim to be the ones upholding the "spirit" of the Constitution. Whatever that means; I've always had a hard time, for example, saying "I'm upholding the spirit of the law by willfully violating it."

[hedda_foil]

126. I believe the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, two years before the South was conquered

Or occupied. It couldn't go into effect until 1865, beyond accepting black people who fled the South as free rather than returning them to their "owners."

[onenote]

11. Y'know, when the birthers argued that the courts could overturn Obama's election

because he allegedly wasn't a natural born citizen, we laughed at them, not merely because the underlying claim was ridiculous but also because the courts can't invalidate a national election.

Suddenly, some people here want to give credibility to the birther's process argument (not their factual argument).

[EllieBC]

15. Short memories and high emotions.

It’s a ridiculous and I’ll even say dangerous idea to overturn an election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Outside of impeachment and conviction or resignation it's nigh impossible in our system.

[onenote]

23. which is what the courts that reached the issue concluded in the birther cases

See, e.g., Barnett v Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. The OP seems to be suggesting that if enough people protest, SCOTUS will suspend the Constitution.

They lack that power in our constitutional scheme, thank God.

[Atticus]

27. This wins the most ridiculous mischaracterization award for responses in this thread. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Sir, you are being hoisted on your own petard.

But, ANY remedy, ANY solution, STARTS with lots of good people getting royally pissed off and ACTING on that emotion. Neither Congress nor the SCOTUS would ignore a couple million pissed off citizen's camped on the mall. thanks

-Atticus

We should take solace in the fact you're not asking us to immolate ourselves.

[Atticus]

55. Hoisted? Hardly. Could you point out

where I suggested suspending the Constitution?

I didn't think so. But, strawmen are much easier to knock down, aren't they?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. You suggested the election be annulled.

Since there is no provision in the Constitution for annulling an election how do you propose to annul the election without suspending it ?


Now if you want to make the argument that the president can be removed through impeachment and conviction , and annulment then propose an amendment to add annulling an election to the Constitution. That will be even harder than impeachment and conviction. That requires a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate and 2/3 of the states.

We're in la la land.

[bigtree]

66. remember, you're arguing there's no provision

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-if-trump-guilty-his-presidency-must-be-annulled-opinion-1092345

Snopes:

Orenstein:

The Constitution leaves a lot of leeway for Congress. So it is time to consider a new law, one that cleans up the issues and discrepancies in the existing succession act but does more. It should allow for a special election for president and vice president under extraordinary circumstances. Those could include a terrorist attack or an attack by a foreign power or others on Election Day or on the election system or process that destroys or distorts the results. It can also include foreign interference in the election combined with a winning party’s involvement in or reinforcement of the interference. Such a provision would have to be carefully drawn and set a high bar, to avoid any chicanery to call an election for the wrong reasons. It would probably have to require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.

....on proposal by former Secretary of Labor (under Clinton) Robert Reich advocating a Congressional “bill of annulment” designed, essentially, to negate every one of Trump’s individual actions as president:

The Constitution doesn’t mention a presidential annulment, but it is within Congress’s power to enact a bill that voids all actions that Trump has taken as president. This would include everything Trump did on his own — including all executive orders and all regulations or repeals of regulations since his inauguration. (The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court would not be included in the annulment because it entailed Congressional action.)

The bill of annulment would also stipulate that henceforth, all official listings of presidents of the United States would note that the Donald Trump presidency had been annulled. And the president who replaces Trump (presumably, Michael Pence) would officially be listed as the forty-fifth president of the United States.

read more: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/27/presidential-election-do-over/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. From the article you cited

But Reich’s idea suffers from the same fundamental weakness identified by Laurence Tribe in the cases above, namely that it couldn’t come to fruition without a supermajority vote of Congress (which members of Trump’s own party, the Republicans, control), and it’s all but impossible to imagine it surviving a Supreme Court challenge if it got that far.

[bigtree]

70. quite different than what you've been slamming the op for

...you've been insisting there's no provision for this.

Whether it's politically doable is certainly something which is open to debate, but that's not what you've been claiming. There is a path to annulment, albeit, an uphill battle.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Please cite the Article in the Constitution where it provides for annulments of elections ?

Thank you in advance.

[bigtree]

73. please provide me the article that says Congress can't interpret the Constitution

...or provide remedies and reinforcements of the provisions.

Your posit has nothing to do with what Reich or Orenstein wrote.

You set up a new bar, took it down, then put it back up again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. I read what they wrote and I don't find it compelling.

Neither did Professor Tribe who is the only law professor of the three:

But Reich’s idea suffers from the same fundamental weakness identified by Laurence Tribe in the cases above, namely that it couldn’t come to fruition without a supermajority vote of Congress (which members of Trump’s own party, the Republicans, control), and it’s all but impossible to imagine it surviving a Supreme Court challenge if it got that far.

Occam's Razor- Why wouldn't it survive a Supreme Court Challenge? Because there is no provision for annulments in the Constitution.

[onenote]

93. A bill annulling every action taken by Trump would cause chaos

For example, Trump signed budget bills. If you "annul" them, you shut down the government until new budget bills are enacted. All sorts of other nonsense would follow.

In one of the birther cases, the court addressed the issue of annulling a president's election and the actions taken by a president. The conclusion, not surprisingly, was that there is no constitutional basis for doing any such thing -- if you want to remove a president, the Constitution provides the means -- the sole means - of doing so.

[Atticus]

106. "the sole means"? Where does it say this? Where does it say this is the

exclusive method? The drafters certainly knew how to use words of limitation. Can you cite them? Or is it merely a presumption that impeachment is the "sole" means?

[Atticus]

107. "the sole means"? Where does it say this? Where does it say this is the

exclusive method? The drafters certainly knew how to use words of limitation. Can you cite them? Or is it merely a presumption that impeachment is the "sole" means?

[onenote]

109. Is there another means spelled out (apart from the 25th amendment)?

I assume that since the Constitution doesn't make election via the electoral college the "sole means" for choosing a president (apart from vp succession), you think the courts or congress or someone could simply say, "Hey, we're picking a new president by drawing a name out of hat this time).

[world wide wally]

17. Travel deductions for corporations

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. It really behooves the original poster to share with us his plan to oust a sitting president

It really behooves the original poster to share with us his plan on how to oust a sitting president, outside of the provisions put forth for removing a president in the Constitution.

[Atticus]

25. I have posted a suggestion above, but it is just one. If I understand your position

and that if several here, until someone had a guaranteed airtight so!ution, we should all just shut up and go quietly. And, that Churchill stuff about doing "what is required" is just nonsense, I guess.

I've seen more passion displayed about the tax code.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Please point to an Amendment or Article in the Constitution that provides for an election annullment

Thank you in advance.

The Constitution only provides for the removal of a president through resignation or impeachment and conviction, Winston Churchill's admonition to do what is necessary notwithstanding.

[Atticus]

59. It Did you read the OP and my subsequent responses?

To play your game---only better---please point to an Amendment or Article in the Constitution that prohibits the US Supreme Court from construing the Constitution or a statute using long-established equitable principles to permit the annulment of the 2016 election.

The attitude that nothing should ever be done for the first time is the essence of cons!ervatism.

Thank you for making me think We have the same goals but differing thoughts as to how they should be attained. I credit you with earnest good faith and hope you can reciprocate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. It has nothing to do with conservatism, faith or feelings.

To play your game---only better---please point to an Amendment or Article in the Constitution that prohibits the US Supreme Court from construing the Constitution or a statute using long-established equitable principles to permit the annulment of the 2016 election.

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.

Article 2 Section 4
U.S. Constitution

[Atticus]

83. Did I miss the word "only" in that text? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. The method for impeaching

The method for removing a president is clearly delineated in the Constitution, all the casuistry and sophistry in the world notwithstanding.


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams

[bigtree]

29. you're right

..politics isn't a static enterprise.

It's dynamic and highly susceptible to the tiniest of influences generating massive support overnight; some political catalyst taking over Congress like a virus.

We should never lose sight of how politically craven - and that means cowardly when speaking of republicans - politicians can be when co9nfrointed by a mass of advocacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. There is a huge difference

There is a huge difference in arguing we can persuade enough Republicans to abandon Trump and make impeachment and conviction or resignation likely, as arduous a task as that might be, and positing half baked notions about "annulling" an election. The original poster seems to be arguing for the latter, and that is why so many posters are treating his proposal with the skepticism it deserves.

[bigtree]

35. just stop

...I wasn't responding to anyone else's bias against the poster's beliefs.

History says the op's query is exactly right. I don't know what's to be gained by injecting cynicism into it. This is what drives voters crazy. Don't just tell us the system won't support radical changes when we demand action. And don't tell us we have to draft constitutional amendments to press our demands that Congress finds ways to act.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. It's cynical to posit scenarios that have no chance of materializing.

Barring resignation if you want to remove Trump from office you need two hundred and eighteen members of the House to vote for his impeachment and sixty seven members of the Senate to vote for his conviction.

Annulment is not part of our constitutional framework, all the appeals to emotion, notwithstanding. The moral and intellectually honest position for those who want to see Trump removed from office is to call to elect more Democrats and convince Republicans to join us in removing him via impeachment and conviction or resignation.

[bigtree]

38. sad.

...take to the streets people.

Now.

Believe in your capacity to effect change through your advocacy and activism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. There is nothing in my comments that suggest I oppose activism.

There is nothing in my comments that suggest I oppose activism, be it protesting, petitioning individual members of Congress, registering people to vote, voting et cetera.

We should protest Trump's presidency. If the protests grow large enough, and we elect more Democrats, maybe Republicans will join us in removing Trump from office, whether it be by resignation or by impeachment and conviction.

My quarrel is with the patently absurd suggestion the Supreme Court, Congress , or anybody can "annul" an election.

[bigtree]

40. you made that perfectly clear

...but I think you've lost the thread of 'protest' by waxing cynical about what's politically possible.

There you stand, mired in pragmatism. Not much currency there for those looking to upend barriers to change.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I'm not trying to be contentious.

I believe in protest. I believe in activism. I have protested. I have marched. I have worked in campaigns. I have driven folks to the polls.

It has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with the fact there's no mechanism in the Constitution for "annulling" an election. Wanna get rid of Dirty Don, impeach and convict him or make him quit.

[bigtree]

42. no mechanism, true

...but we're in a constitutional crisis which doesn't appear to be (completely) manageable within the constructs the founders proscribed in the Constitution.

I'm not convinced the American people (or Congress, or even the rightist SC) is prepared to just sit by and allow our democracy to be hijacked by a game show host and a Russian dictator. The urgency and importance which they apply to their actions in response to an election stolen by a candidate on behalf of a foreign government is bound to be greatly influenced by the public reaction to that indictment or verdict.

Politics isn't a static enterprise. It's dynamic and infinitely impressionable and malleable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. My friend.

The mid terms are coming up. I can think of no better measure of the pulse of the American people than elections. These are the most consequential mid terms in my lifetime. I believe we have an excellent chance of regaining the House and a puncher's chance of recapturing the Senate. Upon that occurring impeachment, conviction.and resignation will all be on the table. There are constitutional provisions for that.

I don't believe it's pragmatic as much as being realistic to realize the remedies for the mess we find ourselves in can be found in the Constitution.


P.S. In some of my posts in this thread I tried to inject a little levity. Even in the most dire situations , like war and funerals, people laugh.


PEACE
DSB

[Igel]

46. Some are impatient.

They want a coup.

Perhaps a legal coup like the one Lula da Silva experienced in Brazil.

Perhaps a palace coup, where some people from one branch of government go to the Oval Office, restrain the guy currently there, and imprison him while installing somebody they think should be in the office.

Perhaps just an out-and-out "storm the barricades and put the bastard's head on a pike while we install our guy."

They just don't want to call it a coup.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I saw a thread agitating in favor of a military coup or at least ruminating about one.

I can understand the frustration but it is essential we remain tethered to reality.

The legal coup theory is interesting. Even in the unlikely event Trump was indicted it would likely take the rest of his term or most of it to litigate it to trial.

[qazplm135]

51. pragmatism??

Basic reality.

It's like someone saying they want to stand on the sun, someone else saying, no you literally cannot do that, and you saying...silly pragmatist!

[bigtree]

52. hyperbole

...another good word.

[qazplm135]

61. it's a great word

doesn't describe anything I have said though.

[KPN]

99. Not sure this OP doesn't recognize this ad

a first step toward “annulling” the policy and appointment effects of this illegitimate presidency. It seems to there is cynicism on both sides of this argument, not just the OPs.

Cannot SCOTUS appointments be reversed via impeachment? While that most assuredly is a long, arduous up-stream paddle, it is not a virtual impossibility. The only way one gets to the moon is by shooting for the moon — which, as you know, we have accomplished.

I would much prefer that we seek to annul every dastardly thing this illegitimate president has done as opposed to saying “there is no Constitutional mechanism for doing so”. If his presidency is indeed illegitimate, it would be irresponsible and folly of us to not do everything we can to undue his SCOTUS appointments in particular.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. The Constitution allows for impeachment of justices

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.

-Article 2 Section 4

[Charlotte Little]

64. Geez, Tough Crowd

This is a forum where folks mull over everything. The OP is simply putting this up for discussion.

Fantasy? Sure. But I'll admit that I am all for annulling a POTUS who (may be) proven beyond a doubt to have cheated alongside a hostile foreign leader. The founding fathers worried that a Trump could happen, but somehow they did not have the forethought of a complicit coequal branch of government. In other words, the constitution is actually quite flawed and pretty weak, as we all now are witnessing. And if Trump and his flying monkeys keep lining the federal courts with right wing judges, you can bet your ass that they'll be making all kinds of changes to the constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-surprisingly-close-to-a-new-constitutional-convention-bad-idea/2017/04/06/f6d5b76a-197d-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.cf6a045438d6

So, while we should remain skeptical, we should also maybe agree to stop doing what democrats are so well known for - bringing a butter knife to a nuclear war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. The Constitution is imperfect but it offers the possibility of amending itself.

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2018, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

If the OP wants to amend the Constitution to include annulling election that's his prerogative.


But the suggestion that the legislature can pass a law that annuls an election that the executive and judicial branch will abide by is magical thinking.

[Atticus]

79. Do you not realize that anyone who can read can easily see

that you are just making stuff up? Get a grip. Your zeal to prove yourself right and those who disagree deluded simpletons is not serving you, or us, well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I didn't make anything up.

It is interesting you are making ad hominem arguments:

Do you not realize that anyone who can read can easily see that you are just making stuff up ?

while accusing me of making ad hominem arguments.

Get a grip. Your zeal to prove yourself right and those who disagree deluded simpletons is not serving you, or us, well.

If you think an anonymous scolding is going to force me to submit there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

P.S. Show me what I made up. I have all day.

[Atticus]

85. I understand your reluctance to deal in facts. At this point, please declare yourelf my superior

or construct additional straw men, as you see fit. I can't see wasting any further time and I'm sure others will agree with my decision.

Happy Labor Day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. More ad hominems

I can't see wasting any further time and I'm sure others will agree with my decision.

Appeal to popularity or argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. In any case if you bothered to read the responses most of the respondents can't find annulment in the Constitution either. This is my favorite, blunt and to the point:

The fact that you don't understand basic high school civics doesn’t make that straw man argument any less silly.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211083891#post74

The whole "I'll gratuitously insult you and go on my way" retort is pusillanimous and insulting but you already knew that and that's why you did it.

"Happy Labor Day."

[Atticus]

102. Thank you. nt

[Atticus]

97. Thank you. nt

[NYC Liberal]

33. None of those things were specifically forbidden by the Constitution.

The methods by which a person becomes president are specifically prescribed in the Constitution.

[J_William_Ryan]

34. Typical rightwing ignorance.

Government is at liberty to enact all manner of laws, measures, and policies provided they are consistent with Constitutional case law.

If citizens believe government has acted contrary to that case law, they may seek relief in Federal court to determine the constitutionality of government acts, where acts repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated.

Laws, measures, and policies enacted by government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in deference to the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives.

The notion that government may not act unless that specific act is ‘authorized’ by the Constitution is as ignorant as it is wrong.

[qazplm135]

53. you have it exactly reversed

the Constitution is EXACTLY about specifically delineating the powers of government.

It certainly often does it foggily and unclear which leads to debate and disagreement, but that's literally it's raison d'etre.

It does not generally spell out rights for individuals precisely to avoid the argument that if a right is not listed, it does not exist.

It gives us how you elect a President and how you remove one. Clearly, no fog, no room for interpretation.

We either follow the Constitution or we are just a bunch of folks who make up rules as the tides come in (aka Republicans).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I had to read the post you are responding to twice.

I'm still trying to understand his argument.

The Constitution clearly delineates how a president is elected and how a president is removed. Congress can't pass a law that says the elected president should vacate his or her office because they say so. That's absurd. And if they passed such a law as a co-equal branch of government the president could just ignore it. It goes to the courts where they invariably would uphold the Articles of the Constitution that deal with the election and removal of a president.

[qazplm135]

62. this thread is filled

with folks who want to tear up rules we've lived by for 200+ years because a bad dude is in the WH.

Maybe folks should have voted for the right candidate in 2016, but enough didn't so this is what happens.

Now, we can vote in the next two elections and fix it...we might even be able to impeach (although all that does is get us Pence, who might arguably be worse). But if the country is so fragile that four years of Trump destroys it and we have to ignore the Constitution to stop it, then this country is fucked and it's all a waste of time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. I am a believer in a world after this one.

In this world we are governed by laws and there is no room for magical thinking.

[Atticus]

68. The Constitution provides "A" method to remove a legitimately elected POTUS. Disregarding for the

moment the irony of someone who violated our laws in order to seize power now seeking refuge in their lack of specificity, if Trump won through criminal fraud and foreign interference, i.e., illegitimately, why should we be limited to impeachment as our sole remedy?

[qazplm135]

95. So basically

You don't care about law or the Constitution because Trump doesn't. Got it.

[Atticus]

96. If it makes you feel better to say that's what I said, knock yourself out. nt

[qazplm135]

127. lol

my emotional attachment to your posts in this thread mirrors my emotional attachment to cardboard or the color beige.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. This thread reminds me of the thread where a poster

This thread reminds me of a thread where the poster complained about folks honoring John McCain as was his right. In the thread he showered everybody who agreed with him with kudos and was curt with everybody who wasn't.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

45. You want Trump out earlier than 2021?

Next up is President Pence. Be careful what you wish for.

[sarisataka]

50. The Constitution mentions 5 ways

A President leaves office.
One is end of term so if we are looking at ending before 2021 that's out.

The next to our out of our hands, that being death or incapacitation. Granted they may be induced by Human Action but I assume no one is giving the slightest shred of thought to that.

The remaining two methods are resignation and impeachment. Resignation is solely in Trump's hands; IMO his ego would never allow him to quit. Impeachment as we will know is in the hands of Congress and We Know How likely it is for them to do the right thing.

ANY other discussion of removing any president from office by another means is, at this point, speculative fantasy. The only way to make the fantasy reality, within the current constitutional framework, is through the amendment process.

[bigtree]

54. Congress interprets provisions of the Constitution from time to time

...and makes actionable changes and reinforcements without constitutional amendments.

See: Voting Rights Act.

[sarisataka]

88. Congress does not interpret

The Constitution, that is the duty of the Judicial branch.

Congress can and does pass legislation within the proscribed limits of the Constitution. Actions beyond those limits, say just for a random example- removing a sitting President other than by impeachment, would require an Amendment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. And if they pass a law that SCOTUS feels is outside the Constitution SCOTUS can overrule it.

[sarisataka]

98. Exactly,

These are the most basic check and balance concepts taught to school children, yet many insist on reading new powers simply because the Constitution is not a million page document the enumerates every last thing not allowed. The trouble is, it was not written that way. The Constitution give broad guidelines of what powers each branch has with some specific limits. One of the specific limits is how a President may be removed

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. This is basic citizenship stuff.

The legislative branch makes laws
The judicial branch reviews laws
The executive branch enforces the law


And in the unlikely scenario Congress annulled the election and ordered Trump to vacate the presidency who is going to enforce it ? They are co-equal branches of government.

[brooklynite]

58. UNREC

How did any of those policies get implemented outside the Constitution.

[Atticus]

75. And, of course, the Constitution is a static document, right? How it is interpreted

or construed never changes, right? That's why the only "arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment are black powder muskets.

Oh, wait----the Court can interpret the Constitution to accommodate new situations confronting Americans? Now, THERE'S a thought!

[brooklynite]

77. It is a dynamic document that gets modified by a static provision covering how it gets modified.

[Atticus]

81. If you believe you just made sense, that's one. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. No need to attack your interlocutor

it is a dynamic document that gets modified by a static provision covering how it gets modified.

Your interlocutor is saying that within the Constitution is a process for amending/modifying it

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Well

---the Emancipation Proclamation? -Executive Order- I don't think Trump will order himself removed. Any way the 13th Amendment gave it the force of law
---women voting? - Amendment process
---Brown vs Board of Education? - Segregated schools were a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
---the Voting Rights Act? Based on the 15th Amendment that gave the freedman the right to vote
---the Civil Rights Act? -Based on the 14th Amendment which provided the freedman with the right to due process
---gay marriage? - Based on the 14th Amendment right to due process
Lily Ledbetter Act?- Congress acting in in its Constitutionally prescribed powers
Collective bargaining rights? See above


"is it really necessary to go on? "

[Atticus]

72. As clearly stated in the OP, these were examples of changes that no one thought

possible because a.) there was no specific Constitutional authorization for them and, b.) there were no statutes authorizing them. Yet, somehow, they "got did".

And, as mentioned in a previous response, straw men are a lot easier to knock down than those "inconvenient" actual posts. You apparently agree.

Have a good one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. "Yet, somehow, they "got did". "

As clearly stated in the OP, these were examples of changes that no one thought
View profile
possible because a.) there was no specific Constitutional authorization for them and, b.) there were no statutes authorizing them. Yet, somehow, they "got did".

The Supreme court positions you cited are based on the Constitution or its subsequent amendments as were the laws passed by Congress.

---the Emancipation Proclamation? -Executive Order- I don't think Trump will order himself removed. Any way the 13th Amendment gave it the force of law
---women voting? - Amendment process
---Brown vs Board of Education? - Segregated schools were a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
---the Voting Rights Act? Based on the 15th Amendment that gave the freedman the right to vote
---the Civil Rights Act? -Based on the 14th Amendment which provided the freedman with the right to due process
---gay marriage? - Based on the 14th Amendment right to due process
Lily Ledbetter Act?- Congress acting in in its Constitutionally prescribed powers
Collective bargaining rights? See above

They didn't make them up out of thin air.

[Atticus]

80. Well, of course, sir. If YOU say so. That's exactly what the OP suggested:

making up solutions out of thin air.

[First Speaker]

94. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments came about solely because of a civil war...

...which came about solely because of the increasing arrogance of the Southern Planter class, which was openly trying to destroy the principles upon which this nation was founded. The Federal government, from 1788-1860, essentially was a mechanism for defending slavery. It certainly had become that by the time of Lincoln's election, and the planters committed suicide because they felt that election meant they weren't in control anymore--which of course was true. The point is, those three amendments came about *only* because the "constitutional order" had collapsed. I think what the author of this thread was suggesting is, we have approached a crisis of democracy as serious as 1860, and that what we regard as the "constitutional order" might turn out to be as fragile as it was then. If we have a President with dictatorial ambitions, with a party behind him that ultimately will not oppose them, and a Supreme Court stacked with Kavanaughs who will let the dictator do whatever he wants...and a crooked "voting system" as well--does anyone really know what happened in the 2016 election? I sure don't--then we are not living under the "constitution" as we have understood it. If the USA moves towards a one-party system, like Poland or Hungary or indeed Russia, and everything happens "constitutionally"--what do we do to save liberal democracy? I don't know. But to think that this isn't where we're headed is to bury your head in the sand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. qazplm135 nailed it

But if the country is so fragile that four years of Trump destroys it and we have to ignore the Constitution to stop it, then this country is fucked and it's all a waste of time.

[Ponietz]

108. Important consideration, thanks for stating.

The validity of elections is the only thing keeping me tied to what constitutional order exists.

[nini]

86. By changing things we can avoid this in the future..

but not going backwards.

It doesn't work that way.

[struggle4progress]

92. Step 1: Work towards election day. Step 2: After election day, evaluate options

[Progressive dog]

104. No one claims that, but

the ways to remove a President are in the Constitution and are very specific. The Emancipation proclamation was an executive order that only applied to states in rebellion, women voting was a Constitutional amendment, Brown was decided by SCOTUS, the rest are based on laws passed Constitutionally.
Not one of your examples was something that "couldn't be done period" but every one required control of one or more branches of government. Which branch(es) do you think Democrats control?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. I guess if the Dems had super majorities in Congress

I suppose if the Democrats had super majorities in Congress and had a majority on the Supreme Court they could annul an election. In fact they could do anything they damn well wanted. They could expropriate the wealth of everybody with more than fifty thousand in net worth. However SCOTUS, even a packed SCOTUS would intervene. Laws have to be somewhat tethered to the Constitution.

Even Bush V Gore which I and a lot of folks believed was wrongly decided was rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The 5-4 majority held that recounting votes in some counties and not others violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. They should have recounted every damn county.

[Atticus]

111. Difficult to imagine, I understand, but these are things that it was "understood" would

never happen. And, the prevailing "wisdom" was that they, indeed, "could not be done"----until they were.

Nothing will be done if nothing is attempted.

[Progressive dog]

113. The US was one of the last places

to end slavery. The authors of the Constitution understood that slavery was morally wrong and would fade away.
Your understanding of things that were understood seems to be in opposition to reality.

[Atticus]

114. Your opinion is based on "the framers" assuming slavery would "fade away".

I am not aware of any references that support this.

[Progressive dog]

115. The last I knew, there were no opinion polls then

but here is a link to a reference that was easily found.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

[Progressive dog]

117. Lot's of references to the founders' views

on slavery. Seek and you shall find.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

[Atticus]

119. And none support your broad characterization that "the founders", generally

or collectively, assumed that slavery would "fade away" in the new nation.

[Progressive dog]

122. "Broad characterization" from someone who wrote

Difficult to imagine, I understand, but these are things that it was "understood" would

never happen. And, the prevailing "wisdom" was that they, indeed, "could not be done"-

which is about as broad as a characterization gets.

[Atticus]

123. I can understand why you'd rather play "waddabout" than actually respond to what was said. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Oy vey

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211083891#post85

[Progressive dog]

128. It's known as projection

You should look it up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. Take two examples from the list of miracles.

Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't a miracle. It was the culmination of four and one half decades of activism. Obergefell was based on Lawrence V Texas which overturned Hardwick V Georgia which criminalized same sex relationships. The Court found in Obergefell that laws that allowed heterosexual marriages but not same sex marriages violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority just didn't interpret the law in the absence of a Constitutional right.


Ditto for Brown which was a repudiation of Plessy V Ferguson. The Court in Plessy held that separate but equal facilities didn't violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court in Brown held that it did.

[mythology]

105. I'll add myself to the list of people telling you how silly this comparison is

For all the reasons you've refused to listen to before.

[Atticus]

118. Ok. nt

[brooklynite]

120. I'll observe that, in a 12-hour discussion the OP has failed to make any suggestion...

...as to how this "extra-constitutional" action would be carried out.

Is that for other people to work out?

[NurseJackie]

121. Maybe we should clap louder!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Or hold hands and collectively hold our breath.