[Tumeni]

Suppose he's tacitly admitting he lost in 2020, then, by applying to serve for a second term from 2024.

If he'd won in 2020, that would have ushered in his second term, and he would now be applying illegally for a third.

At what point does his bid get denied on the basis that he cannot serve in public office AT ALL?

[markjo]

Right, because that's where his first term was headed.

[Lord Dave]

Right, because that's where his first term was headed.

Considering the source, its obvious a lie.  Melania would never say that.

[Rama Set]

The DOJ has appointed a special counsel to determine if charges are appropriate in the case of the MAL papers.

[honk]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html

At this point, I honestly think that Trump is deliberately escalating his rhetoric as a show of force, a way of reasserting his power over a political party that will continue to rally around him no matter what outrageous things he says or does.

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When the Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. The process of impeaching the President, or the powers of the President has, implies that it is talking about a legitimately elected President. If it is an illegitimate President then nothing in the Constitution can protect him. Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

[stack]

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Please refrain from low content posting. Read the link to find out what is being discussed.

[stack]

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. Therefore in a cause of fraud large parts of the Constitution on how the President is given power, or how that President can be impeached, can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

What fraud?

Please refrain from low content posting. Read the link to find out what is being discussed.

I did. But since there was no fraud, kinda a moot point.

[Tom Bishop]

I did. But since there was no fraud, kinda a moot point.

Whether there was fraud is irrelevant to how the Constitution would handle fraud and whether it needs to be discarded in the case of fraud. If you are not going to participate in the discussion - in this case contributing to the conversation of how the Constitution handles fraud, then please refrain from posting.

[stack]

The conversation wasn't about how the constitution handles fraud until you just brought it up. The conversation was about Trump wanting to toss out the constitution because he thinks there was fraud, years now after it's been shown there wasn't any fraud. Since there was no fraud, whether the constitution addresses fraud or not, is a moot point.

[Tom Bishop]

The article says that "Trump calls for termination of Constitution" because of fraud.

Honk replies and says that calling for termination of the Constitution is an "outrageous" thing to say.

Stack comes along and agrees that termination of the Constitution is the appropriate thing to do in the case of fraud and that it is not such an outrageous thing to say, but says there wasn't no fraud so it doesn't matter.

Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative. It looks like the narrative that termination of the Constitution is "outrageous" has failed.

[Lord Dave]

The problem is that the constitution is quite clear on the process of electing a president.  That process was done.  Electors were sent to the capitol, cast votes, which were then certified by the VP and congress.

The constitution does not state how those electors are chosen.

Therefore, as far as the constitution goes, so long as electors, certified by the states, are sent to the capitol to cast votes, its a legitimage election.

[honk]

Trump is correct. The Constitution does not outline what happens if there is fraud. When the Constitution talking about how the winner of the election is certified and put into power it is implying that the legitimately elected person is certified and put into power. The process of impeaching the President, or the powers of the President has, implies that it is talking about a legitimately elected President. If it is an illegitimate President then nothing in the Constitution can protect him. Large parts of the Constitution can be discarded because they are not applicable to an illegitimately elected President.

The Constitution applies to everyone at all times, and the fact that the president is always assumed to be legitimately elected is exactly what contradicts your assertion that the rules are totally different when it comes to a fraudulently-elected president. If the president did genuinely owe their election to fraud, then the Constitution, far from protecting them, would provide the remedy for removing them from office - impeachment.

Further developments:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/trump-terminate-constitution-00072230

lol of course

[stack]

Stack comes along and agrees that termination of the Constitution is the appropriate thing to do in the case of fraud and that it is not such an outrageous thing to say, but says there wasn't no fraud so it doesn't matter.

Not sure how you arrived at all that. I just said your point is moot. There was no fraud so whether the constitution speaks to presidential election fraud or not is neither here nor there. As honk pointed out, there is a mechanism that is in the constitution, impeachment.

As well, there has been much debate over just such a scenario. Some legal scholars claim that Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again whereas others point to some case law where courts may interpret the constitution differently and allow a redo. So to say "Trump is right" is just blindingly partisan and, in fact, incorrect, as it has not been determined one way or the other. 

As far as Trump goes, totally to be expected. 3 years on, still claiming there was fraud without a shred of evidence and then saying we should ditch the constitution. He's just playing to the delusional idiots who still idolize him...Pillow guy, et al, and filling his coffers.

[Tom Bishop]

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

Likewise, if it were found that the Chinese Government manipulated voting machines to put their preferred person into office, would Congress need to go through the process of impeaching him? Also no. The Constitution's Presidential rights and processes assume that it is a legitimate President.

Similarly, when the Constitution suggests that government officials must follow the law, is it referring to legitimately enacted laws or illegitimate laws that cheated or did not go through the proper processes to become a law? Obviously it is referring to legitimate laws.

[WTF_Seriously]

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

Nonsense.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

pay attention to definition 2.

"to challenge the credibility or validity of"

That would be the purpose of impeachment in the case an election was found to be fraudulent.

Absolutely nowhere does the Constitution infer that at anytime an election would be cast out and the previous president be reinstated into the postition.  In the event that this were to actually happen, both the president and vice president would actually lose office and the Constitutionally spelled out succession would go to the speaker of the house until what time a new election could be held.

[Lord Dave]

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

This one is odd.  If he was a deep fake cgi, then that means no one see's him in person.  He couldn't sign anything into law.  It would be discovered extremely quickly.  The process would then assume he was kidnapped, the VP would assume presidency, and a global hunt for the president would be underway.

Why would they try to impeach someone who was kidnapped/killed?



Also, can you tell us, using the constitution, how a president is legitimately elected?

[garygreen]

The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

my dude if you wanna have this discussion, please read more about how impeachment works. it is not a process that is "granted" to presidents at all. as honk points out, there is a constitutional remedy for fraudulent presidental elections — the house can bring charges against the president, and the senate can try him or her on those charges. the end.

[AATW]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-verdict/index.html

Chuckle.