[ad_1]
You’ve probably heard it reported a few weeks ago that Donald Trump told his confidants that he hoped to bring him back as president in August. I have no way of knowing if that story is accurate, or that New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who reported it, but we do know that Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, is proud that he has evidence of election fraud that will force the Supreme Court to unite to overturn the Nov. 3 election and bring Trump back to power within six weeks.
There is no doubt that far is to be gained, but it raises the fascinating theoretical question of what would happen if a presidential election were proven to have been stolen. What will be the path? Or just accept the country illegally officers the way they do in corrupt countries of the Third World?
Mind you, this is just hypothetical, so Facebook and Twitter and any other Big Tech tyrants is no reason to censor or suppress this line of questioning. This is what educators use to encourage their students-critical thinking, looking at an issue from all sides and having no preconditions to come to a judgment.
But critical thinking is lacking in 21st century America. Instead, we have to orthodoxy or heresy. Of course, the New York Times can write whatever it wants in the way of fantastic stories about the Nov. 3 election, because it writes stories mocking Trump and his claims of election fraud. But for those of us who respond to the Times or other left-leaning news outlets, the same rules don’t apply.
For example, last week, I reprinted a story by RealClearInvestigations reporter Paul Sperry on my own website about evidence for election fraud in Georgia. When I posted it on Facebook with a comment praising Sperry’s work as clear evidence of why a forensic election audit is important, the post closed. I was told that “against [Facebook’s] community standards, ”with no further explanation.
It is clear that the questioning about the election is against Facebook’s standards, suggesting that Facebook’s standards are more similar to the Chinese Communist Party than the US Constitution. The question – about anything and everything – is what journalists are paid to do, and what knowledgeable citizens should do. You will not accept anything the government tells you at face value. You tried it, you investigated it, you proved it.
So first, let me say that my expectation is that no matter what happens, no matter what is proven about election fraud, Donald Trump is unlikely to be reinstated as president in August. Yes, there are some cases in the state courts where the election results are set aside and the losing candidates are high in office after the fraud has been proven. Most notably, in 1998, the incumbent mayor of Miami, Joe Carollo, lost a runoff election, which resulted in his opponent ousting him. However, it turned out that hundreds of absentee ballots were fraudulent, and an appeals court returned the election and returned Carollo as mayor.
That’s what Lindell – and perhaps Trump – expects to happen in August, but the main factor weighing against such an outcome is the U.S. Constitution, which is silent on voter fraud but lays down strict guidelines for how and when. a president may be removed from office. None of those rules, however, seems to apply in the present case that hypothesis. Assuming that voter fraud has already been proven in court, and to a sufficient degree that it will reverse the Electoral College results, there is simply no provision in the Constitution that will not explicitly resolve the situation.
So, with your hat on with critical thinking, imagine how you would deal with the problem – just speculation – of what to do if it became obvious that the sitting president hadn’t been chosen properly. Let’s say evidence emerges showing that China interrupted the election to remove Trump. What does the Supreme Court do?
Can the court rely on an argument process to avoid making such an order? Will the court return to “lack of conviction” or “moot” or “too late”? Remember, the theory is that a foreign force is interfering with a United States presidential election. Does anyone really think that our high court justices will turn their heads and ignore the evidence that Joe Biden was elected not by the American people but by the Chinese Communist Party? I do not. So in that extreme case, the court has to do something that the courts don’t want to do – do it while it lasts.
You see, the Constitution only allows a president to be removed by Congress by impeachment or by the vice president and Cabinet inviting the 25th Amendment to declare the president “cannot remove the powers and duties of his office. “. But if the court is convinced that the president won his office as a result of fraud, and especially a foreign conspiracy, can it just wait for the political impeachment process to take care of the problem? That doesn’t seem likely to me, especially in the super natural environment we live in today. Democrats in Congress are more likely to rally around their dirty president than to sacrifice their progressive agenda. The vice president will be subject to the same questions of lawlessness as the president, so will not be considered fit to serve.
It will therefore be up to the Supreme Court justices to resolve the problem, rather than ignore it, as long as they wish. My guess is that they will cut as close to the stated purpose of the Constitution as possible, and to existing case law. To my mind, that means they will respect the order of succession for the presidency: If both Biden and Harris are removed from office, the presidency will not fall to Donald Trump, but to Nancy Pelosi, who is as spokesman of the House is second in line of the presidency. Trump may have been deceived out of office, but the Constitution provides no remedy for that, lacking the Electoral College or Congress rejecting fraudulent results before the inauguration, a remedy that is really “moot” and “too late “in the present example
But that doesn’t mean Trump won’t be able to return to the White House. Nor will he have to wait until the election in 2024. If Pelosi is named as president, it is assumed that he will remain in an acting role until a new president is elected or he is replaced as spokesman. That’s because the Presidential Succession Act defines officials despite the vice president “acting as president” rather than “becoming” president.
In reality that will make the 2022 election a parliamentary election to determine the next president. If the Democrats won the House in 2022, Pelosi might have finished his term as president, but if the Republicans won, the new speaker of the GOP may be sworn in as the new acting president.
It raised the fantastic possibility of Republicans running for the House in the 2022 election on the promise that if the GOP takes over the chamber again, the party will name Donald Trump as spokesman. That can happen even if Trump ran for a seat in the House itself because there is no constitutional requirement that the speaker will be a member of the House.
So Trump probably won’t be president in August of 2021, but he could in January of 2023. This, of course, is all presumptive at this point, just an exercise in critical thinking. No need to worry about Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and the Big Tech Gestapo. But it won’t stop them from imposing their “community standards” on me and millions of others. It turns out that asking is dangerous, because sometimes you get answers. We can not have now, is not it?
Frank Miele, the retired editor of Daily Inter Lake on Kalispell Mont., Is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His new book “How We Got Here: The Left’s As Assault on the Constitution” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com to read his daily commentary or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Parler @HeartlandDiary.
[ad_2]
picture credit