It would be like trying to stop water from running downhill with your bare hands. He can certainly interrupt the process, but stopping them is nigh impossible. Besides, there are fifty retirees in Congress, mostly Republicans who are retiring to run for other offices. They NEED the elections.

I am much more concerned about the chaos that could be caused by his attempting and failing than the horrors of his success, because I think his failure is, by far, the most likely outcome.

Especially if they are seeing it happen in their own city!

There are probably tens of thousands of R voters in the Atlanta metro area who would react to an occupying force suppressing people's vote with "this is completely insane" and either not vote or change their vote to D

They can try, but there are some obvious problems with that: 1) suppressing turnout could also suppress some R vote 2) they only have enough manpower to suppress a few polling places across the whole country, affecting 3 Senate races at best 3) An occupying force will change how people vote!

I'm pretty sure the move will be to drive down turnout in urban areas; specifically, certain cities like Atlanta. Drive down turnout there and Ossof likely losses. Drive down turnout in Charlotte and Cooper might not win.

Not all things are like all other things. The fact that I don’t know the difference between a liver and a gall bladder doesn‘t make them the same, even if I’m mad.

I keep thinking (hoping) that the strength of state governments — both as entities and their codification in the Constitution — are keeping us hanging on at this point.

I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s capable of trying, and his team would support it, but I don’t think it’s as Thanos-snapping-finger as easy as people think.

Yeah, I’ve had this convo a few times already with a few people - he can certainly SAY they’re cancelled, but making it happen is a whole different story. There’s simply not enough resources under his control to detain every single election official, candidate, poll worker, etc.

A much more likely scenario is attempting to bully or frighten people into avoiding voting centers.

He can't. It's the one thing, the ONE thing I'm confident he won't make happen simply due to the sheer logistics of it.

if i want water from the sink, i have to turn on the faucet. if i want to ride my bike, i have to pedal and engage the gears. there is a mechanism. my point is that there is no *mechanism* by which elections can be canceled. it's not about norms, it is about how things work.

okay the actual last thing i have to say here is that a lot of you are responding with "you think guardrails and institutions will hold!" and that is a sign you aren't actually engaging with the words you're reading. (cont.)

anyway i already see people with undiagnosed anxiety replying to this with lurid fantasies of trump's god like powers so i'll end it here

you can't actually suppress away a wave of discontent. (relatedly, i think a lot of you have no idea how large this country is and how small its various military and security forces are relative to its population)

now, of course, when you point out the practical obstacles to "canceling the elections" people move the goal posts to "voter suppression and various shenanigans." yeah, those things exist and they always have. but the other thing is that those things work *at the margins*

here's what happens after house elections, which are conducted by each state and locality: the state certifies the winner the winners go to washington they convene a new house they choose a speaker notice who isn't involved here? the president or the current speaker or the senate.

who cares what he cares about, the question is "how does this process actually work, and what mechanisms exist for him to affect it." the executive branch plays exactly zero role in the composition, certification and seating of a new congress. bsky.app/profile/push...

when the current term of the 119th congress ends on january 2 (or 3, i forget) 227, mike johnson ceases to be speaker of the house bsky.app/profile/gran...

i don't even know why i'm raising this here because i know i'm going to get a hundred replies of "Trump has god powers that will let him do whatever he wants and thus we have no choice but to bend to his will," but for those of you capable of complex thought, these are questions to ask yourself.

ICE can't even deal with irate middle-aged midwesterners. how does he occupy hundreds, if not thousands, of polling cites and precincts? trump v. illinois clarified that he has no legal authority to unilaterally commandeer national guards, how does he move forward from there?

what does he do about the fact that in most states midterms and statewides are on the same cycle, so "canceling the elections" might mean that tennessee doesn't have a governor next year. how does he convince tennessee republicans to give up power in their own states?

the question to ask about this is, okay, he wants to cancel the midterms. how does he get the VA state board of elections to cancel the midterms? how does he get the georgia board of elections to do it? how does he convince republican house members to quit their jobs and give up their paychecks?

Hi! Former federal agent here! No, federal officers do not have immunity in the conduct of their duties. I hope this helps.

This whole thread on limits of/on the Insurrection Act is helpful. "What's happening in MN is not a rebellion & there's no argument otherwise. No one is trying to topple the government of the state of MN." In fact, it's federal govt, not insurrectionists, undermining citizens' constitutional rights.

This is the key part: what the Insurrection Act does or does not allow doesn't matter if the mechanisms to prevent going out of those bounds don't work to prevent it. It's still good to know those bounds for documentation purposes for after. But right now Insurrection Act or not is kinda moot.

I love Calvin and Hobbes

I can't predict the future, but I can tell you this: I've been fucking aces-on right about pretty much everything I said was going to happen for years. I'd love to be wrong about what I think is coming next, but....... 💀

And that's what we're staring down the barrel of now: a dictatorial POTUS near the end of his life with nothing to lose who doesn't care about the law BECAUSE he's dying and has nothing to lose, an opposition party not doing anything to oppose him, and nebulous military power behind him.

The other issue is: with a POTUS this lawless, a GOP this fascist, and a Democratic party this feckless, what checks and balances can we really rely on to keep this train on the rails? An authoritarian doesn't give a shit about what the law says outside the power it confers upon him.

All that said, the Act does have weaknesses. As the sole exception to Posse Comitatus, it does imbue POTUS with the power to shove the US military into the streets without really clear limits on when and where it can be used, and a rogue executive can absolutely take it too far.

For example, despite the invocation of the Act, warrants are still required for search, seizure, and arrest. The 4th and 5th Amendments don't just stop being a thing. There are no legal mechanisms for mandatory curfews at the federal level. The military can't pull you out of your house.

Contrary to what Trump thinks, the Insurrection Act does not imbue him with unlimited power. In fact, the Act has pretty clear limits for very good reasons. The Act cannot, I repeat, cannot and does not supersede the Constitution. Period. End of story.

It also, and this would be what I predict they'd use as justification, lets POTUS deploy the military to combat "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy which opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.” Which again, is what ICE is doing.

253 also allows for unilateral deployment by the executive, but again, only under specific circumstances. Firstly, it has to be a situation where an actual insurrection is keeping the state from protecting the constitutional rights of it's citizens. Which ironically, the federal government is doing.

To be clear, what's happening in Minnesota is not a rebellion and there's no argument otherwise. No one is trying to topple the government of the state of Minnesota. Declaring the Insurrection Act under Section 252 would be a violation of the law.

Anyway, section 252 allows POTUS to deploy the military to any state to “suppress rebellion when unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it impracticable to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

"John, wait. What's an insurrection? I keep hearing this word." Good question: an insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government, regardless of whether that government is considered legitimate, WITH THE INTENT OF OVERTHROWING IT. A protest is not an insurrection.

Can POTUS declare the Insurrection Act unilaterally without state authorization? Sort of. The Act itself is comprised of three sections; 251, 252, and 253. The first one requires the governor to request assistance from the executive to combat an insurrection.

A good example would be the way Lyndon Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act to supplement state authorities to enact civil rights. But it does NOT allow for the military to be used as a fighting force against the US populace or even to fight crime. Period.

The Insurrection Act allows active duty Armed Forces to assist the civilian government at the federal or state level; it does not allow the Armed Forces to replace them. Further, it only authorizes the military to enforce federal laws or a very limited number of state laws.

First of all, understand the Insurrection Act is *not* martial law. Martial law doesn't really have an actual definition, but it's essentially the idea of temporarily replacing a civilian government with military rule. And POTUS *does not* have the authority to declare martial law.

So with everything happening in Minnesota, I feel like some people need an explanation of what the Insurrection Act is and isn't, along with martial law (which isn't the same and is very nebulous) from someone who knows what they're talking about. Buckle up.

Fine is a Harvard grad with a degree Magna Cum Laude in Government. He’s not dumb—just a Quisling.

Rep FINE Just Confessed To An Act Of Treason On Live Television, As Greenland Is A NATO Ally, And That Treaty Is BINDING US LAW Under Art 2, Sec 2, Clause 2... Taking Up Arms Against Any Treaty Is No Different Then Taking Up Arms Against The US Government.

What foreign country was Renee Good from?

Renee Good was an America citizen who was killed in cold blood.

Rule #1 - The Psychopath is only ever describing themselves

This imbecile doesn’t even know what habeas corpus is. There’s a 0% chance she’s familiar with the 4th amendment.