Is there any mechanism to invalidate the election?

[still_one]

[cwydro]

1. Oh, not this again.

No.

[still_one]

5. I didn't think so, I just asked a question. The only way is impeachment and the rules

of succession then

[cwydro]

8. I understand.

But ain't no way.

Sigh.

[truebluegreen]

2. Nope.

[jmg257]

3. There is a case before the USSC, but good luck witht that. Don't think so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8644246

[still_one]

6. Thanks for the link

[GP6971]

4. Again?

Not that I'm aware of.

[struggle4progress]

7. No --- and we really don't want to set the precedent

It's going to be a bumpy few years, but we can ride and come out on the far side

[delisen]

9. There is a mechanism for getting Clinton and Kaine into office

As the scandal widens we should be discussing it.

In Watergate, Nixon's vp, Spiro Agnew, had to resign due to a corruption investigation. Gerald Ford was named VP, Then Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became president,

In our current situation if things becomes hot enough for Trump, Pence, and Republicans there could be a deal struck in which Pence resigns and Trump names Clinton as vp then Trump resigns or Trump could resign, Pence becomes president for a few hours in which he names Clinton as vp, then Pence resigns.

It may seem that Trump, Pence, and the Republican Congress would never agree to this but if they are implicated they may decide it is in their best interests to do so.

A lot depends on investigations, public opinion, and how much we demand justice.

[LisaL]

10. That's a fantasy land.

[WillowTree]

11. Thanks! I needed a good laugh.

[butdiduvote]

12. No way in hell Trump would swallow his pride and agree to this.

Maybe Trump could be impeached and then Pence could name her as VP, but I think Pence's hardcore religious convictions (aka hardline anti-abortion stance) would prevent him from doing that.

[delisen]

22. When Agnew, then Nixon resigned the occurrence was without precedent.

It was shocking, yet it happened.

I don't expect Pence to do anything honorable-the deal would only come about if Pence and enough of the Republican leadership were implicated and might be able to avoid worse treatment or greater exposure by making such a deal.

Trump, if backed into a corner will make the best deal he can to save his hide. He will only care about himself and his first three children. Nobody has asked yet what his kids knew.

Restitution can get get wrongdoers a lighter sentence.

In any case demanding justice, even when it seem impossible to achieve, is not a necessarily a waste of time. I don't think we should see any Republican, Trump or someone who might fill out Trump's term, as legitimate.

[triron]

24. excellent points

How bout by popular demand! Other countries have done it. Let' set a precedent.
Fuck this has never happened before. Why not a solution that has never happened before (at least in
this nation).

[WillowTree]

27. Y'see, there's this troublesome document that gets in the way of anything of that nature.

They call it the US Constitution. There is no provision therein that would allow such a thing.

In other words, not just unprecedented, but unconstitutional.

[July]

44. Good point about nobody looking at his 3 older kids.

Wasn't Ivanka on a vacation recently with Putin's girlfriend, Wendy Murdoch?

[still_one]

15. There is no way trump will name Hillary as VP, in fact he will not resign, and will go

through impeachment, and most likely I suspect Ryan by rules of succession would end up as President, assuming Pence goes down with him

[starshine00]

19. wow that is interesting

Paul "waste of my fucking time" Ryan as pres... lolol

It will be interesting to see what Ryan's attitude toward Pence is forthwith, if he knows he's so close to the throne.

he's such a repulsive frat boy...I just can't imagine him as C in C...gross

[still_one]

21. The whole situation makes me sick

[delisen]

26. I think Trump will try to get the best deal he can for himself-he won't care about the others

except for his three children in the business. We don't yet know what they knew.

Of course he can pardon them or have himself pardoned but his empire might collapse. He may also have to worry about retaliation by the Russians.

[still_one]

28. If it has legs and moves forward, the republicans will impeach in a NY minute

and try to get both trump and pence removed, and ryan put in through the rules of succession I think

I don't think they are interested in any deals with trump if it gets to that stage

[First Speaker]

13. No, but there is the possibility of a total national implosion...

...nobody saw the end of the Soviet Union coming. The US might go the same way. If half the country regards the "administration"--whether Trump, Pence, Ryan, or whomever--as illegitimate, the Constitution could lose legitimacy as well in the eyes of many Americans. Revolutionary alternatives might be considered. *I* feel this way, and I am a very gentle, conservative-with-a-small-c 14th generation Connecticut Yankee. If the GOP essentially turns a blind eye to treason, and attempts to benefit from it, I would support just about anything to rid us of them. I think many people, even here at DU, are underestimating the extent of the crisis that's engulfing us.

[PSPS]

16. Yes, yours would be the only "alternative."

Whenever this subject comes up in my conversations, it always ends up at the same place: "Everyone knows what has to be done. It's just that nobody wants to talk about it."

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

14. There isn't anything in place to address something like this

But then there has never been a circumstance like this. I'm not sure where it would go, if anywhere, but it couldn't hurt to take it to federal court and try to get them to do something. The worst that will happen is nothing.

[still_one]

17. If this involved not only a foreign government interfering with our election, but also

the FBI covering it up, this would be a full blown Constitutional Crisis

[Blue_true]

18. No. The Constitution doesn't have such a provision.

As much as I loath Trump, I am glad the Constitution does not allow a Presidential election redo, imagine the hassle Oresident Obama would have faced from republicans abusing the provision?

[still_one]

23. I understand, but if it is shown that a foreign entity actually affected our election, is the

election valid?

I understand the Constitution doesn't allow it, and most likely the rules of succession would take over, but this is unbelievable if apperances are what they seem

[PoliticAverse]

38. "if it is shown that a foreign entity actually affected our election, is the election valid?"

Yes. Multiple times presidential candidates have been found to have actually violated campaign
contribution laws and yet the elections haven't even been overturned in those cases.

[flamingdem]

20. It's called "The People" - it's up to US

We have to be relentless and they'll have to solve this situation with a new protocol

[triron]

25. My thoughts as well

[longship]

29. Jesus Christ!! Does nobody here read the US Constitution?

Your answer is, NO!

[better]

30. Respectfully...

Respectfully, the Constitution is not the only framework to which we might look for possible answers to OP'S question.

Many might, for example, conclude that what we have just witnessed constitutes a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evincing a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.

(Particularly in light of Presidential authority that will not be questioned by "so-called" judges...)

I trust we all recall what the Declaration of Independence identifies as not only our right, but our duty, in such event.

PSPS hit the nail on the head.

It should be noted that I am not advocating armed rebellion, but plenty of governments around the world have conceded to non-violent mass movements demanding new elections.

Not possible to force by law, perhaps, and not at all likely to happen by concession here, but at least within the realm of possibility, I would argue.

[Maru Kitteh]

34. Welcome to DU and happy late Valentines Day!

Enjoy your heart for whatever little time we get to keep them.

[WillowTree]

36. Respectfully.......

.......that's nonsense and not at all within the realm of possibility. The Constitution is, in fact, the only document that determines how our government operates. The Supreme Court does not function to interpret and uphold the Declaration of Independence, it exists to make sure that we are upholding the Constitution.

[better]

42. That may be

But I wasn't a dressing how the government we currently have works, I was addressing how governments in general work. And the DoI does in fact lay out that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

One can, therefore, make a reasoned argument that we could in fact nullify this election by the majority of the governed withdrawing their consent. That is arguably the central premise upon which this country was established.

As I made clear in my first post, I agree that it is highly improbable, but it is within the realm of possibility. The very existence of the Constitution is a direct result of exactly such a possibility.

[WillowTree]

43. Well, you go right ahead and keep believing.......

.......that the Declaration of Independence is in some way.......any way.......factually one of our governing documents. Just understand that that won't make it so.

[better]

46. If you read carefully

you will notice that I did not say that it is one of our governing documents. That it is not (on which we agree) does not change the facts that it is one of our founding documents, and that it does set forth a justification for the People rejecting their current Goverment, which is entirely relevant to the subject of this thread.

The overarching point I am making is that the consent of the governed is the measure of the legititimacy of the government, and that the remedy of throwing off a goverment and providing new guards for our future security is not by necessity synonymous with rejecting the form of government.

We ARE the majority, and this is therefore an option available to us. I make no claim that it is either a good one or likely to succeed, of course.

[qdouble]

31. The dream scenario would be for Dems to win back the house/senate in 2018

and then impeach both the president and VP.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. I don't want Paul Ryan in the White House. Too risky.

He is too smooth with the bullshit and we would be running a risk of him being elected in 2020.

[qdouble]

35. If Dems win the house and senate then he won't be the majority leader.

Although the party insiders love him, nothing is showing that he'd win a national republican primary right now, but regardless, hopefully we'll have someone inspiring running in 2020.

[PoliticAverse]

40. Yes that would seem to be the most realistic scenario to get a Democrat as President before 2021.

[Maru Kitteh]

32. No sadly. Only impeachment.

This is a scenario not imagined, I think.

[PoliticAverse]

37. Not really (even though a group is suing Joe Biden in an attempt to do so). n/t

[Orrex]

39. Let me fire up my Delorean and I'll get right on it.

[anarch]

41. well...

But as others have pointed out, no, not in the sense that you probably mean.


President Pence, or maybe President Ryan on deck, if you ask me.

[MineralMan]

45. Simply put - NO.

There isn't any way to invalidate a presidential election. Once the Electoral College has voted, it's over. The Constitution offers no path to invalidate that. The President can be impeached and removed. He can be replaced under the terms of the 25th amendment. That's it.

In either case, the Vice President assumes the office. Like the President, he was duly elected by the Electoral College. If he cannot assume the office, then the order of succession is clearly laid out. The Speaker of the House is the next on the list after the VP.

It is folly to think that there is some way to kick out those who were elected and replace them with people who were not.

It won't happen. It can't, actually.