Can Kamala Take the Presidency Without an Election?


Posted originally on Oct 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

2024 election

Let me begin with a shocking statement that people generally do not know. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; you will not find any mention of a right to vote. Surprisingly, nowhere in the original text will you find any mention that U.S. citizens have a right to vote. All the ideas of having a right to vote in our pretend Democracy stems from amendments adopted following the U.S. Civil War and legislation passed during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. So, Constitutionally, this leaves even a grey area that the Democrats are trying to drive the election through, claiming there is nothing in the Constitution regarding any right to vote whatsoever. This has led to some suggesting that as President, Biden can issue an executive order allowing all RESIDENTS the right to vote.

I received a phone call asking my opinion:

“Could the election be positioned?”

22nd_Amendment_U.S._Constitution_US_Law_LII_Legal_Information_Institute

Actually, the election can be delayed/postponed but not postponed indefinitely. The ONLY hard deadline spelled out in the Constitution is the END of a president’s term and a vice president’s term on January 20th of the year following a general election. The deadline is restated in the 22nd Amendment. Keep in mind that FDR served more than two terms. That was the purpose of this Amendment.

The Constitution requires that a group of electors, commonly called the Electoral College, choose the next president without mentioning the people voting. If a majority of electors fails to agree on a winner, Congress picks the winner in continental elections held within Congress under the terms of the 12th Amendment. It was the election of 1824 when Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes but the election ended up in the House. The 12th Amendment only stated that the House selects the president by majority with no reference to a candidate who had the most popular or electoral votes should become president. Once again, we can see that the people’s choice does not really matter.

In 1824, the Federalist had collapsed. The Democratic-Republican Party had won six consecutive presidential elections and was the only national political party. It was the fact that this election was decided by Congress that resulted in the split of that party into the Democrats vs the Republicans (South vs North).

Let’s look at Article II, Section 2. It clearly states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” There is no mention of an individual right to vote anywhere in the original Constitution.

Then, Article II, Section 1 delegates the Electoral College deadlines to Congress: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [original spelling] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The Constitution’s 20th Amendment also requires the president and vice president to end their terms of office on January 20 at noon in the year following the general election.

“The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January,”

However, Congress controls by statute when electoral votes are counted at the states and at Congress. The statute read that “the electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.”

The states must send their electoral votes to Congress by late December. Suppose electoral votes are NOT received by the fourth Wednesday in December. In that case, the President of the Senate or the Archivist of the United States can use “the most expeditious method available” to get the votes sent to Congress. The electoral votes received by Congress are then counted in a joint session at 1 p.m. on January 6. If a presidential or vice presidential candidate does not receive a majority of the electoral votes, the House selects the next president, and the Senate selects the next vice president.

vote_america_800_clr_9480

Post-Civil War states used public elections to pick the winners of electoral votes in presidential elections. This is NOT A Constitutional REQUIREMENT! For EXAMPLE, Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes among districts. Therefore, we do NOT find any standardized requirement to empower people to vote. Each state legislature has a process for selecting the slate of electors that represents a candidate. The states and political parties previously worked together on the presidential primary process. But this year, the Democrats denied the people to have any right to vote for a possible alternative to Biden.

In some cases, disputes about that process are settled by the courts, the most notable example being the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore in December 2000. To be clear, a state under its own laws could postpone the general election date that results in the selection of electors. At least 45 states have statutes that deal with election-day emergencies.

What remains clear is that only the states and Congress can delay that part of the election process. Some states allow the Governor to postpone an election during emergencies, and that could certainly be a domestic terrorist attack staged to accomplish that or the start of World War III, where neither the Constitution nor Congress provides any similar power to the President or other federal officials to change this date outside of Congress’s regular legislative process.

Congress also has the power to change the various statutes to alter the date for an election and the date electoral votes are to be received in Washington and counted in Congress. Such changes would require the consent of the House and the Senate and would be extraordinary since it would require the agreement of the majority in both houses. Congress could even delegate some of its electoral process powers to the Executive Branch in emergencies. That would allow Biden even to pull off an executive order. The fear is that Biden already has the executive power to allow aliens to vote.

All of this taken into account, there is no power to actually delay elections without a deadline. There is no such power to postpone elections indefinitely since the Constitution also requires that Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen ‘every second year’ according to Article I, Section 2, and Senators to be chosen for terms of ‘six years’ under the 17th Amendment.

In the absence of a clear winner of the presidential election on January 20, the Constitution does allow the Speaker of the House to serve as Acting President. That would end up as a Republican. The 20th Amendment requires that the duly elected president and vice president MUST assume their positions at some point. However, Congress may elect a President and Vice President if they are unqualified to take those positions.

The Justice Department filed a suit against Alabama, claiming that the voter roll purge announcement took place 84 days before the November 5 election and violated the National Voter Registration Act. This could upend the election, and then a host of lawsuits involving alien voting will be challenged nationwide. That guarantees that the 2024 election will end up in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would have to rule on whether aliens can vote in the U.S. elections.

Loophole

OK, we have looked at the various requirements and established that (1) you have no Constitutional Right to Vote, and (2) there is no uniform requirement that every state carries out some standardized election procedure. We also know that there are some ways that states could mess up and delay the federal election. There could even be a scenario where the election occurs in Congress without the Electoral College or the people.

VidHOWEVER, What if Biden resigns on January 19th and Kamal becomes President? The 22nd Amendment would apply if Kamala “acted” as president for over two years. If that would occur, then the Speaker of the House would not assume the acting role as President. All of this confusion is being created for the sole purpose of retaining the power of the Neocons. They do not care about the country, not about the people. This is only about their victory; to them, it is like a football game, and their team has to win.

The 2020_Coup

They cleverly used COVID and instigated the January 6th riot to prevent a count of state votes where a challenge was to be made before the entire Congress. The electoral votes received by Congress will be counted in a joint session at 1 p.m., and Pelosi declared an emergency rule to prevent any challenge to a state’s vote. Then she imposed COVID Rules restricting the maximum number of people on the floor to 53. Thus, Pelosi secured the presidency for Biden, and nobody understood what they did. They got away with it in 2020, and they will pull a fast one in 2024.

Fulton County Judge Drops Another 2 Counts Against President Trump in Fani Willis Lawfare Case


Posted originally on the CTH on September 12, 2024 | Sundance

The Fulton County judge overseeing the Fani Willis constructed lawfare case against President Trump has just told the prosecution they must drop another two charges as DA Willis is trying to use a state court to prosecute federal charges.

VIA CBS – […] Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee said the two counts fall under federal jurisdiction. Both counts deal with conspiracy and filing false documents. Five counts of the original indictment against Trump have now been dismissed. Three were dropped earlier this year by Judge McAfee, who ruled that the charges lacked detail. Trump now faces eight remaining counts in the case, out of the original 13. (read more)

The Georgia case is currently in the appeals court over the prior ruling that Fani Willis should be permitted to stay on the prosecution of Trump after her boyfriend, the lawyer prosecuting the case, was forcibly removed due to the inherent conflict of interest.  The appellate court ruling on Willis’ status is not anticipated before the November election.

The Lawfare Group Draw up a Modified 4 Count Indictment Hoping to Regenerate Legal Battles Against President Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on August 27, 2024 | Sundance

It’s really not Jack Smith, so we should drop the pretenses.  Mary McCord, Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann have recrafted a new DC indictment against President Trump by dropping around 10 pages of fraudulent evidence from the prior indictment and labeling it a “superseding indictment.”

The 36-page indictment is available HERE.  Essentially, after the supreme court decision on immunity, the majority of the previous case against President Trump was likely to fail, so Mary, Norm and Andrew went back and modified the previously lawfare to fit a narrower scale as requested by the supreme court.

The Lawfare crew then hand off the indictment to Jack Smith who runs it through a Grand Jury, and re-files it as a new set of issues; however, the majority of the case is structurally the same, they just took out the evidence they were using.  This fiasco does not appear to be any better than the previous pages of Lawfare.

(Via Politico) – […] The new indictment removes some specific allegations against Trump but contains the same four criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. It’s a signal that Smith believes the high court’s immunity decision doesn’t pose a major impediment to convicting the former president.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” Smith’s team wrote in an accompanying court filing.

The development is unlikely to alter the reality that a trial in the case before the November election looks impossible. In fact, the new indictment could drag the case out further — defense attorneys often seek delays after prosecutors revise criminal allegations.

Both sides face a Friday deadline to propose next steps to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Biden appointee who is overseeing the proceedings in the trial court. Chutkan has scheduled a Sept. 5 hearing to set a course for the case. (read more)

Harker: Smith, Willis, And Bragg Deprived Trump’s Civil Rights Under The Color Of Law


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: July 26, 2024 at 07:45 pm EST

Lawfare Apoplectic – Judge Cannon Dismisses Classified Document Case Against President Trump – Rules Special Counsel Appointment Violates “Appointments Clause”


Posted originally on the CTH on July 15, 2024 | Sundance 

Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the classified documents case against President Trump that was brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Using a similar argument recently included by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge Cannon has dismissed the case as an unconstitutional lawfare attack. The Lawfare community, writ large, is apoplectic.

In her ruling [SEE HERE] Judge Cannon ruled the appointment of Smith was not constitutional. “The Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme — the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law,” Cannon wrote.

“At most, the history reflects an ad hoc, inconsistent practice of naming prosecutors from both inside and outside of government (typically in response to national scandal) who possessed wildly variant degrees of power and autonomy. The lack of consistency makes it near impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about Congress’s approval of modern special counsels like Special Counsel Smith,” she wrote.

[SOURCE DOCUMENT]

The malevolent forces of the deep state have suffered a tremendous defeat, and the demons are shrieking.

The Washington Post, representing the interests of the U.S. Intelligence Community who fully supported the Lawfare attack, writes:

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department is highly likely to appeal the decision, and the issue may eventually reach the Supreme Court. By dismissing the entire indictment, Cannon’s decision also means that the charges are dropped for Trump’s two co-defendants, Waltine “Walt” Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

Even if Cannon’s ruling is eventually overruled, the decision to dismiss Trump’s indictment adds to a string of legal victories for him in recent weeks, including a sweeping Supreme Court ruling July 1 that gives former presidents broad immunity for their official acts while in office.

At the Justice Department, Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to comment on the ruling. A spokesman for Smith did not immediately comment.

On social media, Trump said Monday’s dismissal “should be just the first step” and that the rest of the criminal and civil cases against him also should be tossed out of court. He accused Democrats of conspiring against him to bring those cases, a claim that has been repeatedly denied by federal, state, and local officials. (read more)

Brat On Presidential Immunity: “No Evidence” President Trump Will Overreach After Immunity Ruling


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: July 02, 2024 at 09:00 am EST

Free Steve Bannon! | The Interview that made him a marked man | TO THE FED!


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: July 02, 2024 at 07:00 am EST

Trump’s Sentencing Called in Question Moved to September


Posted originally on Jul 2, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Bragg Merchan

We have a MOST interesting problem in this New York case where Trump was found guilty on 34 counts concerning the falsified documents that were created in 2017, while President Trump was in office as President. Trump’s lawyers are NOT arguing that the Trump Organization checks the president signed were official duties. However, the prejudice of the prosecutor and the pretend acting judge have created a problem that may require the dismissal of the conviction.

In March 2024, Trump’s attorneys moved to limit the scope of evidence to exclude the president’s official acts. Acting judge Merchan denied the motion, claiming it was “untimely.” This questionable judge responded that he could rule on objections based on presidential immunity during the trial. In addition, this conflicted prosecutor, Bragg, presented prejudicial statements and evidence that were presented by the district attorney at trial. The Prosecution described an event in the Oval Office as “devastating” and introduced statements by the president and witness testimony about working for the president in the White House. None of this would be permitted under the Supreme Court ruling. This official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury, and this quest to find Trump guilty by any means is starting to backfire. All of this is because, to convert a misdemeanor to a felon, they used the Federal Election of 2016, and that led to introducing even official acts in the White House.

The Supreme Court held that a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Prosecutors would have to rebut the presumptive immunity for official acts before he could be charged for them.

Acting Judge Merchan has ordered that the sentencing of former President Donald Trump will be postponed from July 11th, which was timed for the Republican Convention to create as much chaos as possible, to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM “for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings.” I think a first-semester law student would have to conclude that, at the very minimum, this will be a mistrial, and Constitutionally, it is doubtful that this prosecution is even valid.

DJIND M 5 30 24

Our computer has been showing all year that Sepetember would be a Panic Cycle, and we are looking at some major event unfolding then. It may be more related to politics in the United States than geopolitical matters.

New Indictment for Trump Coming?


Posted originally on Jun 29, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Smith Garland

Smith and Garland are trying to indict Trump on Drug Charges, alleging he drugged Biden to win the Debate. They are desperately trying to find a statue they can twist to fit the crime.

CNN Trump Biden Dbate R

Rule Of Law


Posted originally on Armstrong Economics on: May 28, 2024

US Colonial Courthouse Philadelphia

Justice

United States Case Law