Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

Impeachment will not cut it: 2016 election must be declared void

   “What stupid f*****g thing did Trump do today?”
   That is a good way to start a conversation these days. The always is an answer.
   As Trump approval ratings in the demographic of his “solid” base—white males over 45 with high school diplomas or less, in education—have slipped, and as Trump has made statements either silly or dangerous, more people discuss the possibilities of impeachment and also removal under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
   Neither of those options is quick. Also, in either case, only one person, Trump, who benefitted from Russia’s interference with the 2016 elections is punished. Mike Pence would take over in both instances, even if the Republican Party agreed to move ahead and impeach Trump or the cabinet agreed he is incapable of performing the duties of his office.. 
   Also, the Republican Party has done all it can to tilt what is supposed to be a level playing field sharply in its favor. Voter ID laws, cross checking, gerrymandering, and arbitrary purges of voter lists are a few of the tools the GOP has utilized to solidify the control of the minority party over the structures of our government, at both Federal and State levels.  It is hardly likely that party will cede control it has obtained through nefarious means. 
   There is another option.  In a 1976, a U.S. District Court held: “Protecting the integrity of elections, particularly Presidential contests, is essential to a free and democratic society. ... It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to the public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.” Donohue v. Board of Elections of New York State, 435 F.Supp. 957, 967 (E.D.N.Y. 1976). 
   An action must—and soon will—be brought in a district court. Such an action can be brought if there is no other adequate, specific, legal remedy. Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 150 (1803).
   Our legal system is derived from the British legal system.  In Britain, there were courts of law and courts sitting in equity. The former awarded monetary damages. The latter could order things be done to remedy an injustice. Our courts have combined law and equity jurisdictions in one system, but the causes of action still are distinct. An action will be brought that seeks (1) appointment of a Special Master, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to conduct an independent investigation into the 2016 elections and (2) if Russian interference is shown to have provided Trump with the electoral college margin of victory, the election results be declared void.
   A previous action before the Supreme Court, Bailey et al. v. U.S., docket 16-1464.  A Petition for Writ of Mandamus, sought these remedies. That action was dismissed, on October 2, 2017, without comment. The new case will be brought before a District Court because a District Court is a plenary court and is more appropriate as a forum in which to litigate these issues. The Petition in Bailey was filed at the Supreme Court because the weight of the issues is so great, it was thought only the Supreme Court could address them.
   We face a constitutional crisis like none other in our history. This is a valid legal procedure by which to remedy the injustices wrought by the 2016 elections.

Views: 125


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2023   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page