Negate the corrupted election

[randr]

Throw out the corrupted election and re-qualify a winner based on popular vote.
The only fair thing to do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. How?

[randr]

3. I wish I knew, I only know it would be the right thing to do

[SCantiGOP]

20. It's called:

Trashing the Constitution and ending the rule of law in America.

I know where you're coming from, but we are just going to have to wait until 2020 to make it better.

There's a good chance we stole the 1960 election, which was decided by Illinois going for Kennedy. Most historians think that the Dems probably stole more votes in Chicago than the Repubs did in the southern part of the state, but no one would have advocated overturning the election if that had been proven.

[Jim Lane]

34. About the 1960 theft

You're right that there's a good chance the Daley machine in Chicago stole Illinois for JFK. Still, he would have won even without Illinois's electoral votes. To make the election questionable, you must also cast doubt on the Democratic win in at least one other state (cough cough Texas cough).

As against that, there's a good chance that the Republicans stole California for Nixon through fraudulent conduct concerning the absentee ballots. In the official tally, Nixon carried his home state by less than half a percent.

Flip just Illinois, or flip all three states, and Kennedy still wins.

[Generic Brad]

35. The Constitution has already been trashed

And rule of law in America has already ended. Criminals are fully in charge. They stole the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court.

There are no rules where we are now going.

[SCantiGOP]

37. Im not willing to endorse anarchy yet

[Iggo]

21. It's called revolution.

I ain't ready for that.

You ain't ready for that.

Even the people who think they're ready for that ain't ready for that.

[Funtatlaguy]

2. Ummmm. We have no constitutional vehicle for that.

I love the sentiment.
Wish it could happen.
But it won’t.

[randr]

6. We could have with a national referendum to throw out the EC

and chose a President by popular vote.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. There are groups working toward that goal.

Moveon is one. There are many others if you google it.

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/abolish-the-electoral-6

[brooklynite]

23. OAn online petition will definitely do the trick.....

[Mariana]

32. There's no Constitution provision for a national referendum.

Even presidential elections aren't national elections, they are 50 separate state elections.

[loyalsister]

36. Even if that pipe dream came true

Making it retroactive should be a deal breaker.

[Exotica]

4. how do you propose to do this?

There is nothing in the Constitution that will allow this, nothing. The only thing that can be done is to to impeach and then convict and remove Trump, if Mueller can find charges serious enough to warrant a Republican-controlled Congress (hopefully after 2018 mid-terms it is just a Republican-controlled Senate, as the senate map is a huge reach for us to overcome) to do just that.

[Fred Sanders]

5. SCOTUS.

[Exotica]

7. Can you explain more fully?

I am not aware that the Supreme Court can make new laws.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Actually, new member, SCOTUS is a the ultimate arbitrar of all things constitutional.

If there were high crimes and misdemeanours by the elected government directly related to the very election that got that very same government elected a writ of cerotorai and mandamus would be the legal vehicle.

To say massive election fraud has no remedy is anti-democratic to the extreme.

Any more questions?

[mountain grammy]

17. Yes, SCOTUS.

and wouldn't that be a beautiful sight? Not that I think for a minute it will happen, but yes, they could restore democracy.

[Exotica]

18. I never said there is no constitutional remedy to removing Trump

Of course there is that, it is called impeachment via the House, then conviction in the Senate.

As for your SCOTUS positing, I will attempt to walk myself through this.

First, a writ of certiorari would have to be granted by the court, to simply hear the case, so in that you are fully correct (although that is far from a guarantee that they would grant cert. once again)

As for a writ of mandamus seeking to nullify the election, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this, and denied it on October 2nd, 2017.

In Re Renee Bailey, et al., Petitioners

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1464.html



Now, that all said, I would think that if new evidence, direct evidence that Trump was absolutely fraudulently elected (a view I share but as of yet cannot point to pervasive, conclusive, legally binding (at a SCOTUS level of strict scrutiny) evidence that this occurred) then perhaps the SCOTUS might take it up again. I TRULY hope Mueller is able to bring this level of evidence to the fore.

I would also think, however, that the Court would be loathe to step into new territory and choose to insert itself into a realm that already has a Constitutional remedy (ie. impeachment, conviction, and removal by Congress). The horrific 2000 decision in Gore's case did not have a pre-made Constitutional remedy, so I would guess that was their out on that intrusion.

We shall all just have to wait and see and hope that Trump is somehow removed ASAP.

[Heartstrings]

26. Welcome to du, Exotica! Nt

[Exotica]

29. Hello

Thanks! Still getting my sea legs here.

[Heartstrings]

31. You'll have ups and downs

but generally you're among fellow sane thinkers here......

[Fred Sanders]

27. Gore v. Bush would be a percedent for SCOTUS intervention, so an already plotted pathway exists.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. In Bush v. Gore, the court said its "consideration is limited to the present circumstances."

In other words, it arguably has little precedential value.

[Fred Sanders]

39. I understand. Except the "present circumstances" were in relation to a contested election...not

completely unsimilar to present situation. Both instances of election uncertainty needing a final and quick resolution.

Certainly a good constitutional lawyer could connect the legal dots. Of course some more facts need to be established, but the structure is already there.

[onenote]

28. Writ of certiorari? Mandamus?

Do you know what those are?

The Supreme Court has extremely limited "original" jurisdiction. In virtually all instances, it acts as an appellate tribunal, reviewing cases from lower courts. A petition for a writ of certiorari is vehicle by which the losing party to a lower court case seeks Supreme Court review -- and that review is discretionary with the court. And mandamus is a writ (also discretionary) issued by a court to a lower court or other governmental authority to carry out a non-discretionary act. It is an extraordinary form of relief and gives the Supreme Court no special power to unilaterally hear a case or overturn an election.

So you'd need a case brought before a lower court alleging some violation of a statute or some constitutional violation. Assuming you could dream one up, you'd still need to overcome the courts' reluctance to take "political questions" -- a practice that gives them great leeway to avoid certain types of cases. Assuming you get past that hurdle, before a court could ever consider overturning an election and ordering a new one -- something which itself seems to be without any constitutional/jurisdictional basis, there would have to be a trial, with discovery, at which it was proven by at least a preponderance of the evidence that whatever actions form the basis for the legal claim altered the outcome of the election. Good luck with that. Assuming it could be proven (how?) the trial and lower court appeals would take years before the Supreme Court ever got to the case.

In other words, it can't happen, it ain't happening, and its absurd to think otherwise.

[Fred Sanders]

30. I thought my comments made it clear I know exactly what they are. You ignore the Gore precedent

and the entirety of the argument, and of the other commentator with a legal background on the thread, to agrue a national election stolen by foreign influence should proceed by regular legal order. A stolen, fraudulent election NOT in legal order....no, it is a legal emergency, hence the need to open the final relief valves for quick justice...the prerogative writ.

Even as we speak SCOTUS is taking up the immigration stay case which Republicans filed and want heard before ever going to any lower appellate court.

I stand by my logic.

[onenote]

33. The Gore "precedent"

By its express terms that case is “limited only to the present circumstances" and despite having had the opportunity to cite the case in the intervening 17 years, the Court has never done so. And even if it is a precedent for anything it is only precedent for an equal protection claim based on a standardless process for recounting ballots. Nothing more.

And no, the Supreme Court has not decided to take the immigration stay case before going to a lower appellate court. The Supreme Court, on Friday, was considering a request (made over a month ago) that it do so. It wouldn't be totally unprecedented for the court to agree to do so, but it would be unusual. But we don't know yet what the court will do. And in the meantime, the Trump administration is simultaneously pursuing an appeal of the decision in the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court doesn't get to expand its jurisdiction because someone claims "emergency." And it won't do so.

[Funtatlaguy]

9. Heres how you amend the Constitution.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[chuckstevens]

10. Negate it in 2018 with a blue landslide!

[Funtatlaguy]

11. Yowza

Register people
Make sure they vote
If you can, volunteer or contribute to candidates you believe in.

[global1]

12. We Dems Have To Work To Make The 2018 Midterms....

have the biggest voter turnout in U.S. history. We need to make the Blue Wave into a Blue Tsunami. GOTV!!!!!

[Golden Raisin]

13. Assuming 2018 is not just as tampered with

by Russians, Republican gerrymandering, etc.

[chuckstevens]

15. Agreed

The trick is to make the turnout so big that it would hard to cheat. 5-6 points lead in tbe polls is very possible to steal, but 12+ points would be much harder.

[Exotica]

19. CrossCheck, caging, supression, purging of all sorts etc. The Republicans

will use EVERY dirty rotten trick in the book.

[Ninga]

16. Now THAT is a movement I can join. Bummer stickers anyone?...nt

[brooklynite]

22. It must be nice to change the rules whenever you want to.

I'm sure conservatives would like to be to do that as well.....

[ProudLib72]

24. Agreed except that "fair" doesn't enter into politics anymore

[mythology]

25. This would at best be incredibly stupid.