e: "incorrectly" I ONLY use that word because NONE of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly.
First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this.
The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president.
The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS.
NONE.
And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation.
The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner.
The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent)
Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one;
There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.
e: "incorrectly" I **ONLY** use that word because **NONE** of the other options that could work are known, so "incorrectly" is the only one that fits perfectly.
First: I am not saying this for any reason other than to let those of you who weren't aware understand this.
The US constitution has a process for voting for, inaugurating and seating a president.
The US constitution has NO places in it ANYWHERE for handling an incorrectly (fraudulently, illegally, treasonously (?), whatever) inaugurated POTUS.
NONE.
And this is a giant linchpin in the happenings of the situation.
The true, legal, and actual ONLY way to resolve this would be for a constitutional congress to successfully modify the constitution and apply it in an ex-post-facto manner.
The law and all things legal doesn't usually like ex-post-facto as it strips many basic tenants of legal versus illegal out of the equation. It does happen, but it's rare and generally things which would be ex-post-facto are grandfathered in. Like the drinking age. (Just an example, not a comparison, the two situations are in no way equivalent)
Second: I think everyone can agree with me on this one;
There is a lesser chance of a constitutional congress doing the above than there is for (((Q))) to be anything other than a jew-controlled, civ-nat, cuckoldry fetish based piece of propaganda.
(post is archived)