The Hill published a piece from an Assistant Professor of Political Science, calling for "a new election" given the accusations against Trump.

First of all, how could such a thing even be possible given the complete absence of Constitutional warrant for it? He gets around to that at the end.
If it is determined that Russian efforts did indeed put Trump over the top in an incredibly close election, then the next step would be to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a one-time special election to be held as soon as possible.

This would be far from easy, but it is possible with the support of a two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress, followed with ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Oh, is that all? Presuming Congress and 3/4ths of the states were up for it, we'd be ready to start this new election in a year or two, then? Just to give one little roadblock, Georgia's legislature only meets 40 days a year, and you aren't on their agenda -- nor could you be, until you get Congress to pass that proposed amendment, by which time the 40 days will be up. Maybe the Republican governor will call them back for a special session? If not, you'll have to wait for next year.

Who runs the place in the meantime?

He doesn't give an answer to that, but it's kind of an important question. This has to be done in eight days to avoid a magnificent Constitutional crisis. Who'd be President while we wait on the Congress and the states to work out this special warrant for a one-time election. Not President Obama -- his terms are up. The Constitution clearly says to seat President Trump, but that's the one thing you want to avoid. So we need some other solution.

Maybe we could appoint a warlord Ceasar, um, declare martial law, without a sitting civilian Commander in Chief -- you didn't think this through at all, did you, Prof?

All the same, The Hill published it.


Texan99 said...

In view of recent revelations that the Ukranians were trying the same thing, but on Clinton's side, this could get sticky even if by some miracle all those legislators suddenly decided to go along. Although there's something to be said for a new election not involving either Trump or Clinton, as an alternative-universe sort of dream.

Grim said...

Maybe we could have a Constitutional amendment that by-name bans certain persons from ever being President. It'd be a Bill of Attainder, I suppose, but since it'd be done through the Amendment process it'd be valid enough.

Ymar Sakar said...

Evil has been thinking of overthrowing God for some time now, Grim. It's not wise to underestimate the forces of darkness, although people keep doing it even as they are proud of being saved of humans and by elections. They underestimated the Leftist alliance too, and it was not by their grace or knowledge that they were made aware of the truth.

Grim said...

So you keep telling me, year after year.

And I'll tell you, again, to read Tolkien.

"There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

Despair is a mortal sin. God cannot be overthrown, less even than Sauron could put out the stars.

Eric Blair said...


Assistant Village Idiot said...

I think it's just one more way to say "We really, really don't like Trump, and we think he is so dangerous to our interests that we will risk a throw on wild hypotheticals that we haven't fully thought through."

I love that "If it is determined that Russian efforts did indeed put Trump over-the-top..." What kind of data would one assemble for that? He is attempting to implant the idea as a reasonable possibility, despite lack of evidence. They're having trouble with reality.