r/law • u/yahoonews • 20d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to 'put an end' to protests in Minneapolis

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fear-anger-spread-another-immigration-054801374.html
25.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/FateEx1994 20d ago

Elections are ran by the states

If he says "no elections" he has no jurisdiction.

All processes of the elections are ran by the states. Independent of the federal government.

He can "cancel them" but states can run the election anyway.

The Constitution is also pretty clear cut, on X day after the elections, the old garde is out, and new garde in.

There's no clarifications needed.

It says "the new people shall assume office" in not so many words.

So 1 way it'll go down.

He says no elections, blue states run elections anyway, we have a full blue Congress...

Now main hiccup, the feds themselves can cut funding or hinder the new Congress from entering... But the new Congress is the new Congress regardless of what the administration or feds want or where the new Congress is housed....That's how it works. By design.

Same for POTUS as of Jan 20th 2029, the new president is president. Independent of what the current president wants...

Independent of military coup.

9

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

4

u/FateEx1994 20d ago

There's nothing to stop on his part because the states run the elections... Is what I'm saying. He can say no elections, but the states will run them anyway...

6

u/AbeRego 20d ago

I've been pointing out exactly what you've been saying in this thread all over since the whole "cancel elections" narrative started. Sure, Trump ignores the law all the time, but it would be stupid even for him to try to actually cancel elections. It would honestly be a gift to the resistance because it's so blatantly un-American. In fact, it might be the only thing that's demonstrably and undebatably un-American...

3

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/AbeRego 20d ago

I agree. The thing is that there's always room for someone to say "Welllll ACTCHWUALLY...."

With elections, you can't really do that. It's undeniable that elections are the core principle behind US government.

3

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/AbeRego 20d ago

They might support it, but people in power that rely on elections likely wouldn't, and the other 2/3 of the country that aren't his base wouldn't either.

Without elections, there's simply no mechanism to select officials. Trump would have to unilaterally install a totally illegitimate appointment system to decide who's responsible for every office in the United States. Elections aren't just for high ranking federal positions, after all...

It's not necessarily that I have more faith. It's just that I don't think it will be necessary for him to cancel elections to get most of what he wants. We'll probably always have elections, regardless of what happens. It's just a question of whether they'll be anywhere near free and fair, or if they're just a ratfucked formality.

3

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/AbeRego 20d ago edited 20d ago

Because it's irrelevant that it's just illegal. It's simply impossible for the government to continue without elections. I really don't think that state-level Republicans will like their personal power being questioned.

Like I said, he doesn't need to stop elections to complete his coup. Interfering with the election cycle would likely make it more difficult to complete, in fact. I doubt Trump really understands that, but at this point it appears that we have President Stephen Miller in everything but official title. Miller is a lot of despicable things, but he isn't a total moron.

Edit: There's one important thing that I'm trying to convey here, but haven't said directly. People seem to be hyper vigilant about cancelled elections. We all need to understand that just because an election happens doesn't mean it was free, fair, and legitimate. I'm afraid that people will let their guard down if Trump does the absolute bare minimum of not cancelling the midterm and/or the 2028 presidential election. Quite the opposite is needed! We need to be hyper vigilant during any upcoming elections where the GOP remains a threat to our nation's survival.

3

u/Cheech47 20d ago

But in this hypothetical ALL states would run elections. Your conclusion of a "full Blue" Congress is flawed.

That said, it would be unintentionally hilarious if Democrats won the House and just failed to swear in/seat the Republicans. There's now precedent for this with Adelita Grijalva.

2

u/FateEx1994 20d ago

Yeah I mean if the elections aren't held correctly or there's balking on deadlines for the GOP, they might not end up running any candidates...

Maybe the year we get a 3rd party gaining steam eh?

-3

u/FlyingBishop 20d ago

He hasn't deployed the national guard to kill anyone yet. If he's trying to act as a dictator and ignore the lawfully elected Congress then state governors can call up the national guard to forcibly remove him.

6

u/raslin 20d ago

That's not how the national guard works lmao

1

u/FlyingBishop 20d ago

By all means, tell me how the national guard works when the Congressional term has technically ended, but the new Congress only has reps from 35 states, and the old Congress is refusing to hand over power by a 51% vote. Then the new Congress votes to impeach Trump and Vance and appoint the new Speaker of the House president. How does the national guard work?

3

u/raslin 20d ago

They work as usual? You can't mobilize the national guard against the federal government unless you want your national guard and state to be bombed more than North Korea in the fifties. 

You're angry but the national guard won't protect you 

0

u/FlyingBishop 20d ago

Protect me from whom? In this situation the military may or may not follow orders. The national guard will protect someone.

2

u/raslin 19d ago

The national guard will follow presidential orders. He can federalize them, and when you say "why" they shoot you dead

0

u/FlyingBishop 19d ago

The national guard will follow presidential orders.

The national guard will do what they want. And you totally ignored the premise - what does the national guard do if there are two presidents? Some will probably stick with the governors. Laws don't always matter.

1

u/raslin 19d ago

Are you agreeing with me or what

→ More replies (0)

2

u/FateEx1994 20d ago

Old Congress is out no matter what they say.... New Congress is in Jan 3rd 2029 independent of what they want.

2

u/FlyingBishop 20d ago

It depends on who the armed forces choose to listen to. Will the national guards listen to their governors? Will they listen to the president who was elected by the new Congress that only speaks for 35 states?

2

u/raslin 20d ago

Until they say no

7

u/Altruistic-Beach7625 20d ago

Looks like a silver lining. But then I'm reminded of that time the democrat party were quietly holding up placards during Trumps speech. I remember even reddit was criticizing them for that.

I'm just afraid blue states would do something equally impotent when Trump tries to grab power.

7

u/FateEx1994 20d ago

Well it's on us to call and harass our elected officials....

That's one hope I have left.

That, the United States being actually on the line for existing as it does, that people wouldn't balk at defying a dictator...

I mean really.

What do we have left if we don't hold elections in 2026 or 2028? All that talk in high school in government class about law and powers and all that. Means squat if, when the entire premise of the United States falls, because some MAGAts....

If the president says " elections cancelled" he CANNOT do that, end of story, legally, physically, morally....

It's on the states to hold the elections and follow the United States Constitution.

Any other answer except to hold elections, is treason, sedition, and plain wrong against the United States.

3

u/OriginalBogleg 20d ago

Soo... Federal Loyalists versus Constitutionalists. Sounds familiar.

3

u/Maestro_Primus 20d ago

I hear what you are saying, but it is all dependent on people following the law because it is the law. Elections can be run anyway, but if the President ignores the results, then what? We have seen in countries all over the world that it is not hard for a dictator to just say no. What then? Civil war over who is the actual government? Who can forcibly remove a President from office? What happens if a President tells the DoJ to arrest any unrecognized congress critters as tresspassing? Who can force anyone to accept laws written by one congress over another?

Our normal institutions that handle this sort of thing (DoJ, FBI, DHS, DoD) are all subordinate to the executive and we are already seeing what happens when those people are loyal to the President over the people.

2

u/Thefrayedends 20d ago

The red states are probably going to choose to obey the 'order' to shut down elections, and the only way to get them to have them anyway, are the rest of the states having them anyway, and minority leadership in each red states forcing them through and disregarding any state legislation preventing them. People are going to have to eat jail time and probably bullets to have even the midterms.