ELECTION DO-OVER!

[Equinox Moon]

This corrupt, illegal US election requires a do-over! The evidence is there to include Russian involvement and probable conman inclusion. We cannot trust that ANY of the elected officials from November 8, 2016 was accurate.

Jill Stein's recount efforts are not being re-done by hand-count, as she requested, therefore the truth is being suppressed.

Enough is enough! An election do-over by hand-count from paper ballots. Has there ever been an election do-over?

[roamer65]

1. I agree.

By hand count and paper ballots.

[putitinD]

15. paper ballots hand counted TWICE, just to make sure EVERY vote is counted correctly.

[milestogo]

36. What about votes that were cast on a voting machine?

[davidn3600]

2. You want a civil war?

There is nothing in the Constitution concerning election do-overs because you didnt like the result.

[NightWatcher]

5. The election was manipulated (stolen) by an enemy foreign government!

[Equinox Moon]

6. This is not about "not liking" the results

An election do-over is because of a coup.

[libtodeath]

7. It was an act of war against us

[Equinox Moon]

8. Which included American top leadership and presidential candidate!

[libtodeath]

10. It is not something directly covered in the constitution so all bets should be off

This attack needs to be stopped now.

[SHRED]

46. Democratic leadership was compliant

They sat on their hands last summer.

[Chasstev365]

51. Just like in 2004 in Ohio and 2002, and 2000

Wimps!

[Equinox Moon]

58. Time for a new precedent

There are all kinds of firsts, this is a first to have a coup d'etat lead by American leadership, American intelligence, presidential candidate.

This needs to go to congress and the Supreme Court.

[triron]

61. Perhaps Obama

could declare martial law until this crisis is resolved?

[2naSalit]

9. A corrupted election, like this one, is grounds for

remedial action... like a redo of the election via paper, hand counted ballots... we can take the time to not fuck up the planet, it's that crucial. It can and should be done. Nothing less will quell those of us who have been cheated and have no compunction to accept corrupted result of an election as crucial as this one.

[Equinox Moon]

11. Could this be something the Supreme Court would decide?

[2naSalit]

27. Possibly...

requires one or a number of conditions like someone with "standing" petitioning the court. I'd have to go back and research the actual pathway but there should be at least one. The tough part is getting the (or those) entities who have "standing" to actually go through with it. Could be other elected officials singularly or in groups. but it has to be brought up by particular parties. I question whether the SCOTUS can step in and get involved without that part of the process as I described.

At least, that's what I think is the process without looking it up yet. Going there in a few to check since this is now the top story circulating today, so far. The tangerine spleen will, no doubt, conger up some atrocity for deflection but I think we have come to the blade's edge on this one.

[WillowTree]

64. What constitutional grounds would there be for the USSC to consider?

[2naSalit]

65. If there were

as much evidence as proclaimed indicating that this election was tampered with by a state entity, they may have the power to step in as the third of the government and not affected by the election, to nullify the election or something (not sure what). Wishful thinking, perhaps, but I cannot accept the results as they are presently and projected for the future.

[WillowTree]

68. What constitutional authority would there be for the USSC to do that?

Another one who seems to think we can just make things up as we go along.

[2naSalit]

71. THe fact that

they could possibly be the one branch of the government sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution who might actually be willing to take some kind of action with the intent of defending and upholding the Constitution. The other two branches can't seem to function as prescribed in that document which instructs us all, someone has to step in. There may be some authority to do such a thing and there may not. And perhaps they have some authority or instruction we know little about.

Another one who seems to think we can just make things up as we go along.

My how judgemental of you. So perhaps you could tell me exactly how it is that they wouldn't have some authority to take action? Your high-horse assumptions about me are not appreciated.

[WillowTree]

72. But you didn't answer the question.

The only "authority or instruction" the Supreme Court has over anything is granted by the Constitution. So again, what constitutional authority would there be for the USSC to "step in as the third of the government and not affected by the election, to nullify the election"? Hint: There is none. If you can find something there that does grant such power, please cite it, specifically. If not, you're just making it up as you go.

[PoliticAverse]

47. If they decided to hear it 8-0 against. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

13. What?

Catch up, this was a COUP. This isn't sore loser nonsense. We're taking treasonous acts here.

Wow

[MFM008]

14. The south has been at war since 1865.

And NO I DONT LIKE THESE ELECTION RESULTS.
Maggot brought to you by the KGB.
KGB
KGB
KGB.
You getting this yet?

[Maru Kitteh]

52. I'm sure Putin's sack-lickers (like JPR) probably think it's about "not liking the result"

but of course most of DU is awake and aware to the fact that we are witnessing a coup at the hands of a foreign, hostile power.

Allowing the takeover of our democracy by Putin and his lackeys is not an option. A "do-over" of the election may not be a constitutionally viable option, but we must push for whatever remedy we may have, and do it quickly. Our democracy is about to be handed into fascism with a big, Russian-red bow on it.

[Cha]

67. Exactly, Maru.. We can't let this happen and I don't

see why that's obvious to every American who cares about our country.

Peter Daou
✔ ‎@peterdaou
That SILENCE you hear is from people who yell #MAGA but stand down as we learn that a foreign power took control of America's election.
5:18 PM - 9 Dec 2016
1,208 1,208 Retweets 1,498 1,498 likes

https://twitter.com/peterdaou?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Thank you!

[Maru Kitteh]

69. Right Cha? White power is as white power does. They ADMIRE fascist strong-men

and more than we would care to think long for the days when wimmin's and POC knew their place.

[Cha]

70. Nah, too bad.. we got a taste of power now

We ain't lettin' go.

[TheFrenchRazor]

55. if that's what it takes. nt

[pangaia]

3. Enough is TOO MUCH !!

We all spend a lot of time here doing.. well, ya'll know what.
Crying, bitching, commissuraaating....etc etc etc...
And that is fine.

BUT.. we gotta fight back... Me TOO !!!!

NOW !!!!!!!


SO I suggest---

Get out and contact your reps and tell them to fight against this coup d'etat and every single nominee il duce puts up for his cabinet.

Call the White House
Call Attorneys General
Write letters to editors.
Contact broadcast media.
Join groups fighting the coup.
Contribute $$ if you can.
Post on social media.
Join protests, marches, strikes, boycotts.
any other type of civil disobedience. .
PROTEST any way possible...

Anything else you might think of...

THE SOUTH KOREANS JUST DID IT!!!!!!!!!!

BRAVO 대한민국 !!!

[Equinox Moon]

4. TY for the list of actions. YES!

[libtodeath]

12. Why cant the supreme court be petioned to intervene?

They did in 2000.

[pangaia]

16. Maybe that is another option.

Who can petition the SC?

How does that happen?

[libtodeath]

18. My guess is that any candidate that would have been effected so both Hillary and Stein campaigns

maybe.
Not sure actual voters would but perhaps some constitutional lawyers could figure out since Clinton voters were disenfranchised by a foreign power.

[pangaia]

19. If oyu find out how it is done, please let me know.

I am busy writing emails, making calls,, letters to 'editors,' etc., while listening to Mozart to keep me sane.

[sarisataka]

17. That is the only way

to take any action. The Constitution is silent on nullifying or re-doing elections, so they are the only ones who could make such a change.

Likely they would not rule in such fashion because the Constitution leaves the assignment of electors to the states. Most likely they would leave it to the state legislatures to assign electors rather than ordering a new election.

[Equinox Moon]

21. but...but...but...

this is about more than the presidency. This affected the rest of the GE ballot as well turning everything red.

[sarisataka]

26. That would be more difficult

I don't know if any argument of indirect influence could hold up in court. If not, each election would have to be contested individually.

If there was evidence of direct, widespread vote tamping e.g. the machines were hacked, then perhaps SCOTUS would declare the election null. That would leave us in uncharted waters.

They could order a new election or order the states to fill the seats by the usual process when a vacancy arises outside of an election. I believe in the majority of states the governor would get to appoint senators and representatives would go thru a special election.

That would be interesting if come January we did not have enough members of Congress to have a quorum...

[2naSalit]

29. That is an interesting thought.

I think, I have yet to go look it up as I have to look through all these thread tabs...

But you bring up some interesting points. It is the obligation and sworn oath of all federal office-holders to uphold and defend the Constitution, anything else is a punishable offense, this includes all members of SCOTUS which would imply that they have some kind of Constitutional instruction regarding this kind of mess. Now I have another concept to research.

[libtodeath]

30. That would completely disenfranchise voters in states Hillary won though.

This could be a tipping point for the country this week.

[sarisataka]

33. True it would piss off voters

but Constitutionally they have no right to vote for President. Due to that fact, I do not see a SCOTUS order to redo the popular election. They may suggest the states hold such election but I doubt many would do so unless the state law absolutely requires the electors be assigned based upon the popular vote. I think the states would grab any loophole in their law to avoid the administrative headache and expense of another election. Easier to pay lip service to "the will of the people" and just assign electors as they wish.

[libtodeath]

35. Then wouldnt we all have a valid case about not paying taxes to an illigetimate government?

[sarisataka]

38. I have neither time nor money

to be a test case but be my guest.

Technically it would be a legitimate government since it would follow the letter if not the spirit of the law.

[Kotya]

40. No. The Supreme Court cannot stop Donald Trump from becoming President.

And they did nothing of the sort in 2000. They merely stopped a recount.

Jeez. Some people here really need to brush up on their civics.

At precisely noon on January 20th, 2017, Donald J. Trump will affirm the Oath of Office and assume the position of President of the United States. This transfer of power will take place with the simple movement of a hand on a clock. No inaugural ceremony is necessary.

At this exact time, President Barack H. Obama will cease being the President of the United States.

It is in the Constitution.

There is nothing the Supreme Court can do to stop this.

Perhaps President Obama can stand in front of the White House doors, blocking the entrance and refusing to hand over the keys but this would look silly and childish.

Once Trump becomes President, there are mechanisms in place to remove him from office.

Again, it's all in the Constitution.

[libtodeath]

41. Have we ever had this situation before?

So no there is no precedent set to go by.
The constitution is what the scotus says it is so if they decided that the EC vote was corrupted and put a moratorium on it then there could be time to work out a solution.

[Kotya]

42. They have no say in the matter.

There is no mechanism for them to put a "moratorium" on Donald Trump becoming President. You are assigning a power to an entity that they simply do not have. It's like saying the Supreme Court could decree that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. So what? It doesn't change what is.

[libtodeath]

43. Bullshit

they created a power in 2000 when they needed to so they could again.

[Kotya]

44. They didn't create a power in 2000.

They rendered a judgment that people didn't like, that people thought was unfair. There is a big difference.

Please. Indulge me. Walk me through a scenario in which the Supreme Court somehow mandates that Obama remains president and Donald Trump somehow does not?

How exactly does this transpire? Who enforces it? How do they do this? By what authority does Obama continue to preside, to serve in the office of the executive? Does congress continue to defer to him the role of president? The military?

Quick answer is: They don't.

SCOTUS can say 2+2=6. This doesn't make it so and congress is under no obligation to accept that it does.

[libtodeath]

45. Complete bullshit again

They intervened in a state election after a petition from a vested party.

Where did that come from?

There are numerous vested partys now between voters and campaigns that have been fucked over.

This is uncharted waters and will serve as a precedent for the future.

Are you just telling me to shrug and accept a coup?

[2naSalit]

66. The petitioner has to have "standing" to

approach them and be even heard. that is one process we rarely see usurped, the path to the SCOTUS.

[flamingdem]

20. Because there is no way to quantify how much damage was done

nothing will be done.

[Equinox Moon]

22. a trump administration is the apocalyptic damage

I understand your point, yet I think this time, something will be done.

[flamingdem]

24. Fingers crossed but we need a miracle

or a really brilliant legal mind

[libtodeath]

37. I bet the ACLU and people like Lawrence Tribe are working overtime on this.

[PoliticAverse]

48. I bet they're not.

Lawrence Tribe has offered to represent pro bono any 'faithless electors' though.

[libtodeath]

49. That was before this bombshell.

[roamer65]

23. Let's hope that the Electoral College does its constitutional job.

If it does, we then will see why the framers created it.

[Equinox Moon]

25. My understanding is,

That if conman is not elected by the electors, that the whole mess goes to congress for a vote. They will vote for a republican president, which could be someone else other than trump.

[HassleCat]

28. If some emerging African nation did this

Got Russia to help elect a leader friendly to Russian interests... We would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government.

[brooklynite]

31. Doesn't this belong in th post-mort m section?

[Equinox Moon]

32. No. This is current.

[Kotya]

34. "Has there ever been an election do-over?"

Yes, every four years.

[2naSalit]

39. So....

I have been looking around in the Constitution and have found these interesting and informative points:


The text describing and instructing the EC:

Section 1. [Election, Installation, Removal]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1

(see explanation)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag1_user.html#art2_sec1

===============

Article III
The Judiciary
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

(see explanation)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3toc_user.html


The whole Constitution w/explanations:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

Please browse this and look for the answers we are all asking and then help others to see what we have to and why.

[tritsofme]

50. The do-overs are already scheduled, for 2018 and 2020. What nonsense.

[longship]

53. Sorry. There's no such thing in the USA.

First, nobody has the authority to call an election invalid. Second, there are no laws to allow such a thing.

One could credibly claim that such events as we've now witnessed could be a constitutional crisis because there are no redos in US elections.

[TheFrenchRazor]

54. Do-the-first-time. there has been no legitimate elction. nt

[libtodeath]

57. This,not sure why so many here are happy to let cheato take office.

[McCamy Taylor]

56. Agree! And paper ballots!

[BigDemVoter]

59. Even if there weren't hacked ballots, there was definite

collusion between the Russians and the Repigs/tRump campaign. They worked hand in hand to utilize contrived propaganda to hurt HRC.

[triron]

60. Austria recently did just that.

https://www.rt.com/news/349106-austria-president-election-cancelled/

[Equinox Moon]

62. YES!!! "Austrian court cancels presidential election result, orders re-run"

One would think that the "greatest democracy on earth" (America) would stand up for its own democracy.

Election Do-Over!!!

[Equinox Moon]

63. Petition: Election Do-Over!!!

Link: Petition SCOTUS to Invalidate Election Results Of 2016 - Order A New Election

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/scotus-invalidate-election-results-2016-order-new-election