Motivated to post this because of Mr. Olbermann's righteous anger at Cannon's ruling and the understanding that he wishes (and stated yesterday) to be re-ascended to the Presidency. (Countdown Episode 26, posted this morning to iHeart Radio.)

Here's the problem, Keith:

There are in fact at least THREE paths (other than impeachment/removal, because there's no way the Rethuglipigs can get 67 votes in the Senate for removal) to re-ascend him pseudo-peacefully.

They all involve the Republicans winning or otherwise gaining both Houses of Congress (either immediately through defections -- Manchin and Sinema would be the easy part, if so inclined, followed by CPAC's proposal that the Congressional Black Caucus walks -- or by the proposed Red Tsunami that quacks like Droz and Herschel Walker are making harder for America to stomach....).

The next step, on the part of the House, depends on which of the three paths is taken.

But eventually, what then must occur is the following: A Constitutional Crisis, brought about by a reinterpretation of the 12th Amendment. If the Congress can GIVE consent to the Electoral Vote Count, can it not, then, later, for extreme cause, TAKE it?

We already have efforts by wives of Supreme Court Justices and sitting members of Congress to reverse the votes cast in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia -- with more certainly to follow. Not to mention the number of states which voted for Biden in the EC in 2020 whose Republican Party does not so recognize...

So what you do is a binding resolution revoking the consent given on January 6-7, 2021.

Since "No Person Shall Have Qualified" as President, the Electoral College effectively ruled void part and parcel, the 20th Amendment then gives Congress the absolute power to determine what happens next, by a statute not currently on the books.

At this point, Congress would have three paths:

1) They simply name Trump President. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.

2) The House names Trump Speaker, at which point he becomes President through succession. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.

3) The Congress actually gives Trump his do-over election. The Speaker of the House, whoever the House R's select, is Acting President until the election takes place. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.

I think he loses in all three cases, because of the simple concept that if a Congress can give consent, it can later remove it. Much like Dobbs did for the SCOTUS with Roe.

But the fact is, we are running out of both time and legal methods to prevent this. In fact, I don't like Biden's odds of seeing October 1st.

Mike

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 3:41:33 AM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
> Motivated to post this because of Mr. Olbermann's righteous anger at Cannon's ruling and the understanding that he wishes (and stated yesterday) to be re-ascended to the Presidency. (Countdown Episode 26, posted this morning to iHeart Radio.)
>
> Here's the problem, Keith:
>
> There are in fact at least THREE paths (other than impeachment/removal, because there's no way the Rethuglipigs can get 67 votes in the Senate for removal) to re-ascend him pseudo-peacefully.
>
> They all involve the Republicans winning or otherwise gaining both Houses of Congress (either immediately through defections -- Manchin and Sinema would be the easy part, if so inclined, followed by CPAC's proposal that the Congressional Black Caucus walks -- or by the proposed Red Tsunami that quacks like Droz and Herschel Walker are making harder for America to stomach....).
>
> The next step, on the part of the House, depends on which of the three paths is taken.
>
> But eventually, what then must occur is the following: A Constitutional Crisis, brought about by a reinterpretation of the 12th Amendment. If the Congress can GIVE consent to the Electoral Vote Count, can it not, then, later, for extreme cause, TAKE it?
>
> We already have efforts by wives of Supreme Court Justices and sitting members of Congress to reverse the votes cast in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia -- with more certainly to follow. Not to mention the number of states which voted for Biden in the EC in 2020 whose Republican Party does not so recognize...
>
> So what you do is a binding resolution revoking the consent given on January 6-7, 2021.
>
> Since "No Person Shall Have Qualified" as President, the Electoral College effectively ruled void part and parcel, the 20th Amendment then gives Congress the absolute power to determine what happens next, by a statute not currently on the books.
>
> At this point, Congress would have three paths:
>
> 1) They simply name Trump President. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.
>
> 2) The House names Trump Speaker, at which point he becomes President through succession. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.
>
> 3) The Congress actually gives Trump his do-over election. The Speaker of the House, whoever the House R's select, is Acting President until the election takes place. Biden sues into the Roberts Court.
>
> I think he loses in all three cases, because of the simple concept that if a Congress can give consent, it can later remove it. Much like Dobbs did for the SCOTUS with Roe.
>
> But the fact is, we are running out of both time and legal methods to prevent this. In fact, I don't like Biden's odds of seeing October 1st.
>
> Mike

Olbermann is still a thing?

> So what you do is a binding resolution revoking the consent given on January 6-7, 2021.
>
> I think he loses in all three cases, because of the simple concept that if a Congress can give consent, it can later remove it. Much like Dobbs did for the SCOTUS with Roe.

Except...when did Congress "give consent" to anything involving the counting of the electoral votes? "Consent" is mentioned nowhere in the 12th Amendment.

If consent can be withdrawn, what stops the current Congress from "withdrawing the consent" of counting the votes in 2016? That way, they can declare all of Trump's Supreme Court justices invalid, making Dobbs moot and Roe still the de jure law of the United States. Nothing says that a Congress that "withdraws consent" has to be the same numbered Congress that granted it in the first place.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:00:07 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > So what you do is a binding resolution revoking the consent given on January 6-7, 2021.
> >
> > I think he loses in all three cases, because of the simple concept that if a Congress can give consent, it can later remove it. Much like Dobbs did for the SCOTUS with Roe.
> Except...when did Congress "give consent" to anything involving the counting of the electoral votes? "Consent" is mentioned nowhere in the 12th Amendment.

Consent in the votes. They must vote to consent to the tally. This is what the J6 rioters attempted to stop.

> If consent can be withdrawn, what stops the current Congress from "withdrawing the consent" of counting the votes in 2016? That way, they can declare all of Trump's Supreme Court justices invalid, making Dobbs moot and Roe still the de jure law of the United States. Nothing says that a Congress that "withdraws consent" has to be the same numbered Congress that granted it in the first place.

You could definitely go there if you so wish. A lot of us fear they're heading the other direction.

Mike

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 11:00:07 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> If consent can be withdrawn, what stops the current Congress from "withdrawing the consent" of counting the votes in 2016? That way, they can declare all of Trump's Supreme Court justices invalid, making Dobbs moot and Roe still the de jure law of the United States. Nothing says that a Congress that "withdraws consent" has to be the same numbered Congress that granted it in the first place.

I'll give you another answer: DINO Quislings who actually support Trump.

Mike

> > > I think he loses in all three cases, because of the simple concept that if a Congress can give consent, it can later remove it. Much like Dobbs did for the SCOTUS with Roe.
> > Except...when did Congress "give consent" to anything involving the counting of the electoral votes? "Consent" is mentioned nowhere in the 12th Amendment.
> Consent in the votes. They must vote to consent to the tally. This is what the J6 rioters attempted to stop.

No, they don't have to "consent to the tally." Show me any Congressional Record where this has ever happened. (They are available through congress.gov.)
The Senate could have easily "withheld consent"; remember, it was 50-50 (I think - did the two Georgia runoff winners get sworn in in time for the vote?), and Pence still had the tiebreaking vote.

The January 6ers tried to stop the vote count, period - presumably, for long enough to get enough states to submit pro-Trump sets of electoral votes that, when they did take the count, Trump would win.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 4:14:51 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> No, they don't have to "consent to the tally." Show me any Congressional Record where this has ever happened. (They are available through congress.gov.)
> The Senate could have easily "withheld consent"; remember, it was 50-50 (I think - did the two Georgia runoff winners get sworn in in time for the vote?), and Pence still had the tiebreaking vote.

Which is why many of the J6 rioters literally brought a gallows, and the first person they wanted to hang was Mike Pence.

The consent basically comes from the ability to challenge any slate of electors (or which we now know that there were efforts to challenge at least four states and probably quite a number more!). Eventually, a vote was, in fact, held on 1/6/21 or 1/7/21, and consent was given to accept the tally.

And it is that consent I state they can reverse if given enough power to do so. You would then, because it happened two years hence, end up right in the laps of the Roberts Court, and there's very real question where that ends up.
> The January 6ers tried to stop the vote count, period - presumably, for long enough to get enough states to submit pro-Trump sets of electoral votes that, when they did take the count, Trump would win.

Yes, if the Congress consented to take the alternate slates (or refuse the first slates, which would create either a situation under the 12th or the 20th, and it might be Congress' to decide!). The problem, of course, is that the pro-Trump forces had at ;least about 60 days to actually effect that strategy of alternate electors.

Mike