Civil Discourse Now

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

SCOTUS can void election: 16-1464 should be heard

   In 1787, delegates met in Philadelphia to make corrections to the Articles of Confederation—the document under which this country was governed after the Revolution. James Madison was a delegate.  Referred to by some as the “Father of the Constitution,” he arrived in Philadelphia with a plan for a new government.
   The delegates wrote The Constitution outside the bounds of the authority given to them by Congress. They were to make corrections to the Articles—under which little could be done because the individual States held so much power.
   Today, people praise, while others swear oaths of office to, The Constitution. Some refer to The Constitution in reverence, as if it was delivered by divine hands.
   The Framers were human beings.  They sought to protect the people and the country from base emotions and impulses.  Checks and balances between three branches of government, the Electoral College, a bicameral legislature with representation equal between States (the Senate) and apportioned by population (the House), and a Supreme Court of lifetime appointees distanced from the emotional “swings” of democracy, were written as checks against those who seek power for its own sake.  
   Today Donald Trump is alleged to have gained office through collusion with Russia, a hostile foreign power.  
   The Framers specified impeachment “for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”  Art.II, sec. 4, as one way to remove from office a sitting President  If such acts occurred before Trump was sworn into office on 1/20/17, some construe Art. II, sec. 4, to mean Trump cannot be impeached for those acts.
   The Constitution was amended in 1967 to provide the President may be removed from office if the Vice President and a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e., the Cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may” provide, determine the President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Amend. XXV, sec. 4.
   Impeachment is unavailable in the present circumstances, even if sufficient votes were mustered in the House and the Senate. Removal for inability to perform duties has to do with the health, physical or mental, of the President—not the legality of how he (and the Vice President) took office.
   The Framers knew foreign powers could try to interfere in selection of the “Chief Magistrate,” later called, and what we know as, the President. Madison wrote, during the Convention, that “ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues and influence with the Election.  Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe ... to have at the head of our Government a man attached to their respective politics and interests...” Madison, Note on the Federal Convention, The AntiFederalist Papers, Signet, 1986, p. 120.
   The Framers used quills to write on parchment. They could not have known that over 200 years later, technology would advance and the way people vote could be hacked and an election stolen by a relatively few votes being “flipped” through algorithms in software.  through impeachment, in Article II, Section 4:
   Fortunately, a U.S. District Court over 40 years ago said the President can be removed from office in another way:  “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by ... illegal means. Indeed, entirely foreclosing injunctive relief in the federal courts would invite attempts to influence national elections by illegal means.... ” Donahue v. Board of Elections, 435 F.Supp.957, 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).  Federal courts can use equitable powers:  “The granting of equitable relief premised directly upon the Constitution has long been a practice accepted without discussion.” 435 F.Supp. at 963. “The point, however, is not that ordering a new Presidential election in New York State is beyond the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts. Protecting the integrity of elections - particularly Presidential contests - is essential to a free and democratic society.”
   If Trump gained the Oval Office through “adherence” to an “enemy” of the United States, Trump obtained office through acts of treason—for which he cannot be impeached.  If Trump is able to fulfill, however ineptly, the duties of office, the Twenty-fifth Amendment cannot be invoked.
   Bailey, et al v United States, et al, 16-1464, is the only legal action that seeks independent investigation of the 2016 election and, if collusion occurred between Trump or his campaign and Russia, that the election be declared void ab initio.   
   Disclosure: I am counsel of record in that case.
   I write this blog each day in the hope that more people will become aware. I want members of the Court to be aware that people in this country are outraged.
   WE NEED THE COURT TO ORDER THIS CASE BE HEARD.
   A lot of people are outraged by the theft of our 2016 elections.  Time is short.
   If, at the very least, you agree an independent investigation should be held, ask three people to read the blogs here, and, if they agree, to ask three more.  
   Visit the website for Revote2017 dot net.
  This effort is not “partisan” for either party.  The effort is to take control of the Oval Office back from a hostile foreign power—Russia.


Views: 83

Comment

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

Join Civil Discourse Now

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2017   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video

My Great Web page