DEEP STATE Trump and Constitutional Crisis

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB
In a recent Martin Armstrong blog he claims the "fallback position" for the Deep State is simply not to recognize him as winning the 2024 election.

This will trigger a constitutional crisis.

I can't copy and paste this blog, which is free to the public. Perhaps someone can bring it over?
(See post 19 below for this blog)

armstrongeconomics.com

Title is:

The Constitutional Crisis Coming for 2025

So if election fraud doesn't work, then an effort to deny Trump the Presidency is to say he is ineligible because he invited an insurrection.

The recent Supreme court decision said that this issue cannot be determined by the individual states but only by Federal action.

Of course, this assumes Trump is still alive.
 
Last edited:

Tristan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
We gotta get it over with, hopefully sooner at this point than later. We're getting old.

Nobody "wants" it. But it's the inevitable outcome of the path we've been on.


I didn't say it couldn't happen.

In fact, it might already be baked into the cake, so to speak...

But what comes after, I can't imagine anyone except the worst of the worst looking forward to.

So, anyone wants to say "Let's do this!" hopefully understands that once that door is opened, there ain't no closing it.

At least, that's the view from here.
 

tnphil

Don't screw with an engineer
I didn't say it couldn't happen.

In fact, it might already be baked into the cake, so to speak...

But what comes after, I can't imagine anyone except the worst of the worst looking forward to.

So, anyone wants to say "Let's do this!" hopefully understands that once that door is opened, there ain't no closing it.

At least, that's the view from here.
They have been pushing the envelope for a long time.
 

SurvivalRing

Rich Fleetwood - Founder - author/coder/podcaster
Makes sense that the party of slavery, sedition, and treason, would take a constitutional amendment, modify the meaning to what THEY want, and then blame their biggest and most powerful foe, and accuse THEM of being a confederate…without SAYING THAT.

I heard the best definition of this so-called “insurrection” clause…

The Insurrection Clause, also known as the Disqualification Clause, is Section 3 of which the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was ratified in 1868 and is intended to prevent former Confederates from holding government positions.

Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment

Image: page one of the Fourteenth Amendment
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ Health right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress.

It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people.

Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.

Source ::

 

West

Senior
I heard the best definition of this so-called “insurrection” clause…

The Insurrection Clause, also known as the Disqualification Clause, is Section 3 of which the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was ratified in 1868 and is intended to prevent former Confederates from holding government positions.

Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment

Image: page one of the Fourteenth Amendment
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

The amendment authorized the government to punish states that abridged citizens’ Health right to vote by proportionally reducing their representation in Congress.

It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. The amendment prohibited former Confederate states from repaying war debts and compensating former slave owners for the emancipation of their enslaved people.

Finally, it granted Congress the power to enforce this amendment, a provision that led to the passage of other landmark legislation in the 20th century, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.

Source ::

And Trump is a Yankee!

This needs to be pointed out!
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
I have been thinking that the entire Ukraine insanity was engineered to force Russia to attack us, giving the DS all the excuse they needed to cancel the elections and establish martial law forever.
 

Blacknarwhal

Let's Go Brandon!

These do not sound like the actions of people convinced they can cheat a win under any circumstances.

Fair use cited so on and so forth.

The Constitutional Crisis Coming for 2025​


Posted Mar 5, 2024 by Martin Armstrong |​





QUESTION: Thank you so much for your in-depth analysis on the legal front. With your latest post, I assume that our vote may not count in the end. Congress will refuse to certify a Trump victory, calling him an insurrectionist because the Supreme Court held that only Congress can pass legislation to address that disqualification. That means that there would have to be turmoil for if Congress all flipped to the Democrats, they would have to pass legislation and then the president has to sign it. But they would take office the same day Trump does. Do you have any thoughts on this? I see the Constitutional Crisis you referred to.

I’m glad you did not become a lawyer. You help a lot more people this way.
Cheers.
SF

ANSWER: It would have been nice if the Supreme Court ruled on the insurrection allegation. But if Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and any other Marxist state usurped jurisdiction they did not have, that ended the inquiry. If you read Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s separate opinion, she points out the problem with the Democratic-appointed Justices. True, they had to agree that Colorado had no jurisdiction even to decide the case, much less charge him. The majority wrote:
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

This was correct, or a single state could interfere in a federal election that would violate the civil rights of everyone else in the country. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that delegated to the States any power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates. The three Democrat-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson- wrote that the majority went too far. What Justice Barrett points out is that their rhetoric was inflammatory.

The Democratic dissenters are a forewarning of the Constitutional Crisis to come. They said the ruling “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” and that “we cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.” They even added, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”

The dissenters are arguing that Section 3 is self-executing, in which case the Democrats will rally to their words and REFUSE to certify a Trump victory. The majority said Congress must pass legislation. So the Constitutional Crisis will erupt when the Democrats refuse to certify Trump leaving Biden in office, and then the whole thing goes back to the courts.

Justice Barret saw this crisis unfolding. She wrote: In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency, she said, adding that “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She also issued a warning. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she wrote, referring to the dissenting minority.”

So many markets are starting to show Panic Cycles between September and November. This Constitutional Crisis will come in January 2025 over the certification of the vote. The country is so divided, and the Democrats have expended all their energy on hating Trump. This hatred is not so unlike the period encompassing the Social War of Rome, about 40 years before Caesar was forced to cross the Rubicon. When the Marius faction seized control, they simply executed all the supporters of their opposition – Sulla. The hatred of Trump is so intense it is reminiscent of the Social War period. Will the Democrats eventually do the same and just execute all Republicans on Capitol Hill?

Today, the Democrats will reject the vote no matter what. They will claim that the 14th Amendment is self-executing and refuse to certify Trump without passing any legislation. They will point to the language of these three Democrats on the Court. That means the entire decision if January 6th was an insurrection or not will become the turning point.
CSP500 Y Array 3 5 24
When I look at the long-term timing arrays, we have back-to-back Yearly Directional Changes 2024/2025. If the Democrats pull that trick, they will clearly destroy the confidence in the United States, the rule of law, and the foundation of everything. Even when we turn to the US government’s 30-year bonds, 2024 is a Directional Change. Everything is poised for a major Constitutional Crisis, pretty much like Rome.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
I'd say Obama, let alone Bush senior......or was it LBJ.....
True, but in many ways it started last century with Woodrow Wilson and the passage of directly electing Senators, or the reduction of states rights.... there have been many since then who have moved the ball. LBJ, et all are only the most recent.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
Since the SC said it is Congress who decides the issue, we can expect Dims to pass legislation disallowing Republicans to hold office in sufficient numbers to allow Dims to hold office forever.

Point in fact, a Dim has already put forth legislation to do just that.....
 

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB

These do not sound like the actions of people convinced they can cheat a win under any circumstances.

Fair use cited so on and so forth.

The Constitutional Crisis Coming for 2025​


Posted Mar 5, 2024 by Martin Armstrong |​





QUESTION: Thank you so much for your in-depth analysis on the legal front. With your latest post, I assume that our vote may not count in the end. Congress will refuse to certify a Trump victory, calling him an insurrectionist because the Supreme Court held that only Congress can pass legislation to address that disqualification. That means that there would have to be turmoil for if Congress all flipped to the Democrats, they would have to pass legislation and then the president has to sign it. But they would take office the same day Trump does. Do you have any thoughts on this? I see the Constitutional Crisis you referred to.

I’m glad you did not become a lawyer. You help a lot more people this way.
Cheers.
SF

ANSWER: It would have been nice if the Supreme Court ruled on the insurrection allegation. But if Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and any other Marxist state usurped jurisdiction they did not have, that ended the inquiry. If you read Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s separate opinion, she points out the problem with the Democratic-appointed Justices. True, they had to agree that Colorado had no jurisdiction even to decide the case, much less charge him. The majority wrote:
“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”

This was correct, or a single state could interfere in a federal election that would violate the civil rights of everyone else in the country. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that delegated to the States any power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates. The three Democrat-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson- wrote that the majority went too far. What Justice Barrett points out is that their rhetoric was inflammatory.

The Democratic dissenters are a forewarning of the Constitutional Crisis to come. They said the ruling “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement” and that “we cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.” They even added, “Although we agree that Colorado cannot enforce Section 3, we protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision.”

The dissenters are arguing that Section 3 is self-executing, in which case the Democrats will rally to their words and REFUSE to certify a Trump victory. The majority said Congress must pass legislation. So the Constitutional Crisis will erupt when the Democrats refuse to certify Trump leaving Biden in office, and then the whole thing goes back to the courts.

Justice Barret saw this crisis unfolding. She wrote: In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency, she said, adding that “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” She also issued a warning. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home,” she wrote, referring to the dissenting minority.”

So many markets are starting to show Panic Cycles between September and November. This Constitutional Crisis will come in January 2025 over the certification of the vote. The country is so divided, and the Democrats have expended all their energy on hating Trump. This hatred is not so unlike the period encompassing the Social War of Rome, about 40 years before Caesar was forced to cross the Rubicon. When the Marius faction seized control, they simply executed all the supporters of their opposition – Sulla. The hatred of Trump is so intense it is reminiscent of the Social War period. Will the Democrats eventually do the same and just execute all Republicans on Capitol Hill?

Today, the Democrats will reject the vote no matter what. They will claim that the 14th Amendment is self-executing and refuse to certify Trump without passing any legislation. They will point to the language of these three Democrats on the Court. That means the entire decision if January 6th was an insurrection or not will become the turning point.
CSP500 Y Array 3 5 24
When I look at the long-term timing arrays, we have back-to-back Yearly Directional Changes 2024/2025. If the Democrats pull that trick, they will clearly destroy the confidence in the United States, the rule of law, and the foundation of everything. Even when we turn to the US government’s 30-year bonds, 2024 is a Directional Change. Everything is poised for a major Constitutional Crisis, pretty much like Rome.
Thanks for bringing this over.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
If republicans still hold the majority in congress then it's up to them to remove elected members that will not do their constitutional duty's.
Refusal to perform this task is a collective within our government thats waring against We the People and they need to be removed.
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Dems forget - by tagging Jan 6th as an "insurrection" - which it WAS NOT by any stretch of the imagination... objecting to a Trump election will put that target squarely on THEM. It ain't different. And the rules apply to everyone... so, careful what you make law bozos.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Time To re-read Colleen McClullough's excellent books - The First Man in Room and The Grass Crown (or The Rise of Sulla). To be fair to Sulla, in the book, he seems more like a maverick Republican (or independent) than a Democrat. But I can see the reason the author of the OP chose him as an example of what could happen. Any "side" that perceives it has been pushed too far can snap in situations like we have now. Rome got both civil wars and massive political executions before the End of The Republic.

Amazon is refusing to give me direct page links, but they are both e-books on Kindle.
81WEtzNe2PL._SY466_.jpg

91A2mDrRtIL._SL1500_.jpg
 

von Koehler

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It all makes sense now.

Nancy refused Trump's offer to help.

Instead she called out the National Guard and fenced off the capitol.

.fedgov has arrested and jailed over a thousand people on various bogus charges.

It was all a staged show so they could claim the capitol was under attack by insurrectionists.

They wanted to bar Trump under 14th Amendment.

If they can't win in November, and today's polls show Trump leading, their last resort is to claim he led the insurrection.

They will never acknowledge Trump as President.

This country is hopelessly divided.

They will not give up power voluntarily.
 

20Gauge

TB Fanatic
If republicans still hold the majority in congress then it's up to them to remove elected members that will not do their constitutional duty's.
Refusal to perform this task is a collective within our government thats waring against We the People and they need to be removed.
Each house can do that. I am not sure if it is a simple majority or not......

Read up about it.....

If seated in the House, it takes 2/3 to remove......

Though the refusing to accept the new members credentials is somewhat murky.
From what I can see, there is no real basis for the Senate or House to refuse credentials and it has been argued since they are responsible to "oversee" the federal elections of its members, they can for almost any reason refuse to seat a new member.

So if the Senate or House seats their members 1st, they may have a legal basis to refuse to seat the opposition.... though it may be solely for political reasons, it may actually stick.
 
Top