Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Zoonart

(12,001 posts)
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 08:03 AM Mar 2017

The 2016 election must be nullified [View all]

After what we learned yesterday, is anyone unclear on what our demands must be? The 2016 election must be nullified- top to bottom...full stop.

Had the people known that the FBI and who knows what other agencies, were investigating the Trump campaign in July, the voters would have reacted differently. The press would have acted differently. The narrative would have changed and so would the outcome of the election that Hillary won by 3million votes anyway.

There is no constitutional remedy for this problem. We are in deep dark, uncharted waters. The resistance must change tack .
The Republicans are circling the wagons and are not interested in defending the nation, only the party. Impeachment is too long a route.

Democrats, first and foremost, must stop the hearings for the SCOTUS nominee. Call your representatives.

We must pressure the Supreme Court to hear all of the evidence of the many branches of the intelligence community and then vote to nullify the election.

The SCOTUS is the only body that can overrule the congress and strike down law. They are the body that will have to invalidate the election.

I know... I know. it is unprecedented, it is extra-constitutional, but it must happen and it must happen soon, before we are at war. He is moving his daughter into the White House... they are busy little bees consolidating power to themselves and we don't have much time.


200 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2016 election must be...