What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[hunarcy]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Wow, that is sad. Surely you know that the Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College. The article you quoted is based on incorrect information

Republican Congress certified the EC results based on a fraudulent election.

And thus you expose yourself as a moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen. We don't do re-votes for President. If Trump's out, however that works, then we follow the chain of command as specified in the Constitution.

 

[Lakhota]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

 

[bendog]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Wow, that is sad. Surely you know that the Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College. The article you quoted is based on incorrect information

Republican Congress certified the EC results based on a fraudulent election.

I don't think you can call the election fraudulent. Flawed, sure. Perhaps even Trump has done something warranted impeachment. But he was certified the winner, and no one alleges vote totals were changed or that the votes he got weren't cast by real live people, some of whom were registered voters. (-:

 

[Cecilie1200]

If fraud is proven, it seems to me that the winner of the most popular votes should become president. However, our Constitution doesn't address that. If Trump and Pence are indicted and/or impeached - I certainly don't want Paul Ryan to become president.

Why am I not surprised that that's how it "seems to you"?

In actual fact, the Constitution AND subsequent laws provide procedures for disputed elections. They were intended more for vote count issues and such, but would likely also apply to other disputes.

Alternatively, I guess you could impeach.

Frankly, I'm not sure if your scenario invalidates the election, though. It isn't as though anyone's alleging that the votes themselves were tampered with.

Chief shitting Bull's position is that since Session's shook Klysiac''s hand in a greeting line, the election is fraudulent and Hillary must be made President.

True, but only after Mueller finishes and reports his final investigation report. If Trump is proven to have committed criminal TREASON - then Hillary should become president. She won the popular vote by 3 million. Regardless, she was cheated out of the presidency.

She won the popular vote by 3 million.

That and $5 will get you a yummy drink at Starbucks.

What Starbucks are YOU going to, to get something for only $5?

 

[Cecilie1200]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

No.

 

[hunarcy]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

It allows Congress to not certify a fraudulent election. For example, some Democrats sought to be disruptive during the certification process but were stopped by Vice President Joe Biden. So clutch your pearls because you are overwrought about nothing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

 

[bripat9643]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.

Yes, the mythical Herr Mewler evidence. We've been hearing about this for a year now whenever when one of you delusional morons is asked to support your idiotic claims.

 

[Lakhota]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

I agree, so even if it's proven that Trump committed criminal collusion and/or treason - the Constitution provides no remedy for nullifying or reversing the election. Just like the OP is saying.

 

[Lakhota]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.

Yes, the mythical Herr Mewler evidence. We've been hearing about this for a year now whenever when one of you delusional morons is asked to support your idiotic claims.

Only one year? How long did the Ken Starr investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton last?

Clinton impeachment timeline

 

[harmonica]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

And this has relevance to the 2016 election how?

If anything was fraudulent, it was the Obama administration working illegally behind the scenes to defeat Trump

Try to focus on what the thread topic actually deals with - and not your paranoia.

the OP is paranoia
you use the word ""IF""
you have TDS
this should be in the rubber room/etc ....there are no facts about fraud
what's fraud is you trying make something that is a fairytale out to be real

 

[bripat9643]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.

Yes, the mythical Herr Mewler evidence. We've been hearing about this for a year now whenever when one of you delusional morons is asked to support your idiotic claims.

Only one year? How long did the Ken Starr investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton last?

Clinton impeachment timeline

Whitewater wasn't a whole lot of nothing like this fairy tale is.

 

[hunarcy]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

I agree, so even if it's proven that Trump committed criminal collusion and/or treason - the Constitution provides no remedy for nullifying or reversing the election. Just like the OP is saying.

Hey, care to share a definition of “criminal collusion”?

 

[bripat9643]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

I agree, so even if it's proven that Trump committed criminal collusion and/or treason - the Constitution provides no remedy for nullifying or reversing the election. Just like the OP is saying.

Hey, care to share a define “criminal collusion”?

It's a snowflake delusion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

I agree, so even if it's proven that Trump committed criminal collusion and/or treason - the Constitution provides no remedy for nullifying or reversing the election. Just like the OP is saying.

Yeah, except the OP was saying that the Constitution doesn't have provisions; what YOU'RE saying is that it doesn't have the provisions you want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

Does Article II, Section 4 allow for NULLIFYING/REVERSING a fraudulent election?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

NOPE.

I agree, so even if it's proven that Trump committed criminal collusion and/or treason - the Constitution provides no remedy for nullifying or reversing the election. Just like the OP is saying.

Hillary ain't never gonna be President, even if the Russians give her another $145 million.

 

[bendog]

Well all I can say is ...... Philly bring out yer dead (-:

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“The Constitution Doesn’t Say.”

That not entirely true.

Article II, Section 4 affords the people the means by which to remove a president from office who conspired to win by means of election fraud, such as interference by Russia.

There is ZERO evidence any such thing happened, you have had over a year to provide us any evidence and you have failed miserably.

Mueller will provide the evidence when he is finished.

He will never finish because he has no evidence now he is digging up old crimes and trying to catch people on perjury.

 

[danielpalos]

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Much More: What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

I have only quoted the last paragraph. All the details are in the previous eleven paragraphs. The bottom line appears to be that our Constitution is not equipped to deal with such an event. Hence, a constitutional crisis.

Doesn't matter once the Electoral College proclaims their decision.

I disagree. Such a constitutional crisis must be dealt with - somehow.

What crisis? The Electoral College gets the blame.

Where does the Electoral College get its legal authority?

Our federal Constitution, the States, and the People.

It is an Electoral College,

not,

the electoral signal corp.