Tackling the rumors about Trump heading to the White House in August

[Cyber Liberty]

This would be more likely than the President being re-instated, depending on the laws of Georgia and Arizona.
I would think their state legislatures could recall their senators easier than the US senate could issue a recall.
I am not sure if the constitution allow the US senate to do that, unless they invoke it 25th amendment  somehow, an it would follow the line of succession that the 25th amendment already lays out.

There is no provision in the Constitution that subjects Senators to any recall, either by the voters, the US Senate or the State Legislatures.  Whether an election can be overturned after the Senators in question are sworn in is another matter.  Probably not.

[Bigun]

Even after a quarter of a million posts we are still arguing if this election was stolen?

I'm not arguing that at all! I'm arguing about what we do about the FACT that it was stolen!

[Right_in_Virginia]

Here's what's on the President's mind today ... I stilll don't see anything about August.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not one lawsuit was refused a hearing for lack of evidence.  Not a single one!

That is correct!  Judges used the bogus "lack of Standing" argument to kick them all out of court before actual evidence could be produced and debated.

It's clearly disingenuous to claim no evidence exists when the courts have refused to allow any to be presented.  Put another way, the cases were not decided on their merits!  The SCOTUS refusal to hear TX v PA is only the most glaring example, out of many.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not one lawsuit was refused a hearing for lack of evidence.  Not a single one!

Well obviously none succeeded then. Either way, I seem to recall a plethora of lawsuits and they were all basically lost and I seem to recall that a bunch were thrown out from lack of evidence.

These weren't all Democratic appointees either.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Here's what's on the President's mind today ... I stilll don't see anything about August.

Yeah and there you go, we may be arguing over nothing anyway.

[GrouchoTex]

There is no provision in the Constitution that subjects Senators to any recall, either by the voters, the US Senate or the State Legislatures.  Whether an election can be overturned after the Senators in question are sworn in is another matter.  Probably not.

True, but I guess what I am going for here, is when a senator is replaced, due to death, resignation, illness, etc.
The U.S. constitution doesn't have a provision for that, that I can recall, off of the top of my head, without looking it up.
Doesn't the Constitution allow for the states to decide how that happens?

Scenario:
If the state(s) find that Senator XYZ lost after an audit, could they replace, or at least, have another special election, if their own election processes in these states allow it?
I guess my point was, that this would be more likely to happen, than the President being reinstated.

[Cyber Liberty]

Here's what's on the President's mind today ... I stilll don't see anything about August.

Where did you get these?  I thought the "From the Desk of Donald Trump" page is gone?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

True, but I guess what I am going for here, is when a senator is replaced, due to death, resignation, illness, etc.
The U.S. constitution doesn't have a provision for that, that I can recall, off of the top of my head, without looking it up.
Doesn't the Constitution allow for the states to decide how that happens?

I believe it allows their state legislatures to make procedures to follow when such a thing happens.

[240B]

Trump has no business going to D.C.
He should declare Mara Lago to be the New White House seat of government of free States.
Congressional issues will be decided by State Legislators, no need for a Congress.
He would have 20 States signing up before the end of the first day.
If the Democrats don't like it they can flee to their own States, instead of poisoning Red States with their lunacy.

[Bigun]

That is correct!  Judges used the bogus "lack of Standing" argument to kick them all out of court before actual evidence could be produced and debated.

It's clearly disingenuous to claim no evidence exists when the courts have refused to allow any to be presented.  Put another way, the cases were not decided on their merits!  The SCOTUS refusal to hear TX v PA is only the most glaring example, out of many.

  Exactly right!  But that won't stop them from spouting the big lie.

[GrouchoTex]

Not one lawsuit was refused a hearing for lack of evidence.  Not a single one!

True, it was "lack of standing", with the courts deciding what "standing" meant.

[Sled Dog]

They were selected by their state laws, as per the constitution.

No, they were not.

They were selected by changes made to those laws by the judicial and executive branches of the states, which is in violation of the Constitution.

You could have read what I wrote to see that I already said it and how tiresome it was to keep having to repeat the obvious.

There were some lawsuits that were dismissed for lack of evidence. You are speaking nonsense. The states followed procedure.

There were some lawsuits dismissed.  Before any evidence was submitted.

The states did not follow procedure.   

The courts and the executive branches of the state governments are not "legislatures" as required by the Constitution.

[Sled Dog]

So, according to your idiotic reasoning, there is no remedy when electors have been fraudulently elected in several states. You may well be proven right about that but shouldn't be.  Ever!

There are remedies specified in the Constitution to deal with fraudulent electors.    In every case, the RINOs decided to refuse to challenge the fraudulent electors and to accept the Stolen Election as valid because President Trump was not serving their personal interests of betrayal for profit.

After the Usurper is installed, the Constitution provides only one formal remedy, the Second Amendment.

The alternative option is the next election.

Since the need to overcome the Coup via the ballot box must be driven by angry voters, is it any wonder the Big Tech firms controlling the public's access to the national discourse are censoring all discussion regarding the Stolen Election?    They benefit hugely from owning their own Congresscreatures and Presidents, even fake Usurping Senile Presidents in their pocket is worth more to them than a President representing the American people, as Trump tried to do.

It is any wonder those emotionally insecure RINO-types infesting the forums like to pretend the election was honest, when the Big Lie is obvious to everyone, even themselves?   

So the Rodents censor, the RINOs simper, the useful idiots at the bottom of the food chain declare that the election was honest.   All in an effort to prevent the righteously outraged American people from finding a unifying voice to dismember the tyrants limb from limb.

The Rodents call Voter ID "voter suppression" when it's actually "dead and fictitious and repeating voter" suppression, which is what normal people want.   This last election saw a bunch of zombies voting for a zombie, and then having to make imaginary votes to fill the gap and illegally install the zombie anyway.

The Rodents and their Useful Idiots are terrified because that 81 million zombie number is false, but the Americans have a baseline army of 75,000,000 people who know they have been robbed by stupid donkeys.   The Americans are not happy.

[Sled Dog]

So you're just gonna play judge jury and executioner then? Sounds fun. A nice civil society. The kind of place I'd like my kids to live in.

Better than having MY kids have their country moved to Venezuela. 

Americans are naturally allergic to bananas when they come in republic-shapes.

[Sled Dog]

Judicial review, maybe. Maybe legislatures can step in if there are provisions in the state laws for it, but that may become ex post facto if the election has already happened.


Otherwise we will have civil war every time there is some dispute in the process.

Ex-post facto isn't an issue.

The state legislatures passed a law, signed by the governor, on how the electors were to be selected.

The judges and the secretaries of state then violated that law.

The law was already on the books.

[Sled Dog]

Steve Bannon: Three Georgia GOP Senate Seats Are Coming Back after Full Forensic Audit Completed

https://conservativebrief.com/coming-back-41945/

And as you know, those are seats in the state legislature, not the US Senate Seats.

There are only three ways to remove a Senator from his seat, lost election, impeachment and death.

There may be a fourth way, of the Senate voting to eject a Senator, but I don't know if that's ever been done.   Apparently no matter how vile a Democrat Senator is, even Klansman like Byrd, the Senate is willing to keep him.

[Sled Dog]

Even after a quarter of a million posts we are still arguing if this election was stolen?

People who swallow the Rodents' Gigantically Humongous Not To Mention Really Big Lie aren't willing to face the truth that the election was indeed stolen, right under their noses and in front of their faces.

That would be either embarrassing or a violation of their religious desire to have a Master.

[Sled Dog]

There is no provision in the Constitution that subjects Senators to any recall, either by the voters, the US Senate or the State Legislatures.  Whether an election can be overturned after the Senators in question are sworn in is another matter.  Probably not.

Prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were selected by their states legislatures (I know everyone knows this) to serve a six year term.

To then grant the states the power to recall a senator when a new legislative term began would merely transfer state electoral chaos into the federal government.    Naturally the Framers, who made few mistakes, would not have wanted that.

[Sled Dog]

True, but I guess what I am going for here, is when a senator is replaced, due to death, resignation, illness, etc.
The U.S. constitution doesn't have a provision for that, that I can recall, off of the top of my head, without looking it up.
Doesn't the Constitution allow for the states to decide how that happens?

Scenario:
If the state(s) find that Senator XYZ lost after an audit, could they replace, or at least, have another special election, if their own election processes in these states allow it?
I guess my point was, that this would be more likely to happen, than the President being reinstated.

Nope.

The sitting Senator would have to be impeached.

Since the Senate seats were stolen by Rodents, there's no way the Rodent-House would vote to impeach the Rodent Senator, and even if the Rodent-House impeached the Rodent Senator, there's no way the Rodents in the Senate would vote to convict their friend.

Romney would never vote to impeach a fellow Rodent, either.

[Cyber Liberty]

And as you know, those are seats in the state legislature, not the US Senate Seats.

There are only three ways to remove a Senator from his seat, lost election, impeachment and death.

There may be a fourth way, of the Senate voting to eject a Senator, but I don't know if that's ever been done.   Apparently no matter how vile a Democrat Senator is, even Klansman like Byrd, the Senate is willing to keep him.

Re-read the article.  It's about the US Senate seats.  The headline does not match the article because GA only has two Senators who where elected by fraud.  The third Bannon was talking about is in AZ.

[corbe]

   15 US Senators, all democrats but 1, have been expelled.  The last in 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured

[Sled Dog]

Re-read the article.  It's about the US Senate seats.  The headline does not match the article because GA only has two Senators who where elected by fraud.  The third Bannon was talking about is in AZ.

Then the article is incorrect since there is no way to remove those creatures from their stolen seats unless the Senate votes to eject them, or otherwise, as I noted above.

[Sled Dog]

   15 US Senators, all democrats but 1, have been expelled.  The last in 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured

Thank you.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then the article is incorrect since there is no way to remove those creatures from their stolen seats unless the Senate votes to eject them, or otherwise, as I noted above.

I agree with that, because there's no mechanism in place, as there is no way to overturn a fraudulent Presidential Election.