Wisconsin Assembly is actually going to take a look (at their next session) at nullification of the 2020 results.

It is believed impossible. Those who do so are wrong.

If Wisconsin even intimates this possibility...

Pennsylvania has already declared the method of the 2020 election, with the dropboxes, state-unconstitutional twice.

Wisconsin has just done so similarly -- whether it can be retroactive is another question. (It certainly directs going forward.)

And then you have the Georgia voter rolls.

Blam. What, now, stops a clear attempt by a Republican both houses Congress from rescinding the consent given two years previous and seating the then-Speaker of the House as the President?

They have the Electoral Votes to nullify, at this point.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Blam. What, now, stops a clear attempt by a Republican both houses Congress from rescinding the consent given two years previous and seating the then-Speaker of the House as the President?

The 12th Amendment.
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as
President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed"

This has already taken place.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 9:47:45 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Blam. What, now, stops a clear attempt by a Republican both houses Congress from rescinding the consent given two years previous and seating the then-Speaker of the House as the President?

The 12th Amendment.
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as

President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed"

This has already taken place.

Yes, but there's a problem with that -- almost no Republicans actually believe the election was correctly decided and it appears several states (Pennsylvania (IIRC, twice) and Wisconsin) have rendered the manner in which the 2020 election was held
unconstitutional.

Pennsylvania, at least one: Struck down the 2009 law expanding mail-in voting where Biden won by a 3-1 margin in a state he won by about 1.3%: https://www.newsweek.com/bidens-nearly-2m-mail-pennsylvania-votes-2020-would-now-unconstitutional-1673974

Wisconsin: https://thegreggjarrett.com/wi-supreme-court-rules-state-did-not-have-authority-to-abandon-voter-id-rules-due-to-covid/

(Wisconsin DOES require on-site ID.)

Between that and about 160,000 people they believe should be wiped from Georgia's voting rolls, that would be enough.

I get what you are saying, but this would be a full Constitutional crisis. Resolve to revoke consent, force the administration to sue into the Roberts Supreme Court.

This is different than an impeachment, as you are trying to render him "Never President", not remove him as President.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I get what you are saying, but this would be a full Constitutional crisis. Resolve to revoke consent, force the administration to sue into the Roberts Supreme Court.

This is different than an impeachment, as you are trying to render him "Never President", not remove him as President.

They can't "render him Never President," because if they did, then the government would have to shut down immediately as the current budget never became law. Before anyone claims, "Any bill that isn't signed or vetoed for ten days (not counting Sundays -
but no, we're not a Christian nation in any way) becomes law automatically," the Constitution says that the ten days start when the bill is presented to the President - which it couldn't have been, if he was "never President."

You're right in that there is a significant difference between this and impeachment; in impeachment (and conviction), Harris would become President, but with this, Trump becomes President - and Pence becomes Vice-President. Er, OOPS....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 23, 2022 at 1:47:45 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

They can't "render him Never President," because if they did, then the government would have to shut down immediately as the current budget never became law. Before anyone claims, "Any bill that isn't signed or vetoed for ten days (not counting Sundays

- but no, we're not a Christian nation in any way) becomes law automatically," the Constitution says that the ten days start when the bill is presented to the President - which it couldn't have been, if he was "never President."

You're right in that there is a significant difference between this and impeachment; in impeachment (and conviction), Harris would become President, but with this, Trump becomes President - and Pence becomes Vice-President. Er, OOPS....

Um, no.

In this, the 2023-elected Speaker of the House becomes President.

Now, NOTHING prevents the 2023 House from installing Trump as Speaker for this end.

I assume the declaration COULD directly ask for the installation of Trump, but...

I would also think the nullification of the present budget may not be an unwanted consequence of such an action. Think what they believe actually caused this inflation spree.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)