With everything that has been going on in the US government these past few years and especially this year, are mormons wondering if the Constitution is hanging by a thread? If they are not then what, for them, determines what the hanging looks like? Is it the Executive Branch bypassing rules to appoint questionable appointees, sending troops to states and cities without the request from those entities? Is it invading countries without a declaration of war from Congress or voter suppression? Or the Judicial Branch interfering with congressional due process?

I have a strong feeling the Constitution is only hanging by a thread when it threatens the policies and practices of the mormon hierarchy. I also have a feeling they don't have clue as to how to save it nor care to do anything about because Joe Smith was probably speaking as a man when he had that revelation anyway.

Will Mitt ride in on a white horse ?

He'll borrow one from Ammon Bundy.

Hey - do you think Ammon is related to Ted? Common name, blah. Indulge me.

Doubt it, because it's their guy in charge. Constitutions can only hang from threads if it's the devil's party of radical socialists and cultural Marxists doing the shredding. You know, the side that wants to hurt the Bible and hurt God. They can't conceive of their side doing any damage whatsoever.

A significant % of mormons have turned against Sen. Delecto for his failure to support You Know Who at all times and in all places.

Thanx. I'd forgotten about Pierre Delecto. *LOL*

Romney received the new name "Piere Delecto" in the temple.

I was under the impression that most LDS members are not generally supportive of our current president. I do know several who are, but it kind of surprised me because I saw article headlines from the church that implied a disapproval of the way immigrants have been treated. And unlike many evangelical churches, they encouraged following the health guidelines for covid19 (such as wearing masks) and they closed the chapels.

I don't know if chapels have reopened though, or if they are still livestreaming services.

My impression is that there is a gulf between the church and the members on this score. The church cares about immigrants, family values, etc., but the members are more simply and directly conservative Republicans.

That is one reason they have not excommunicated Bundy and don't want unprepared members talking to the police in the Vallow-Daybell case: the Q15 can't risk offending the many Mormons who are farther to the right than they. It's not an easy balance to maintain.

Most of my family are Republicans. And, they side with Trump. Some, primarily because he's a Republican president. Others, because they are asshats who believe all the bullshit he spouts.

Exact same for me, except you can replace the word "most" with "all"

The problem that most citizens have with Trump is that he is doing what he said he would do

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem that most citizens have with Trump is
> that he is doing what he said he would do


What?? A politician that didn't lie to get elected?
That's Unamerican!

The Constitution hanging by a thread meant to JS that religious freedom to fuck as many women as your little heart desired would be in jeopardy. When it was, BY didn’t ride in on a white horse. He caved. Mormons of today only think it means your right to own assault weapons and shoot as many kindergarteners, high schoolers, concert attendees and peaceful protesters as your little heart desires, is in jeopardy. That is if you don’t care about life in prison. But you have the right to make that decision. The Constitution needs a big equality overhaul, not someone on a white horse riding in to save it’s dying ass.

lol constitution hanging by a thread

those days are long gone

Welcome to 2020 Happy New Year!

Let's suppose--just suppose--that election irregularities (various causes and various partisan activities in key states mean that neither Biden nor Trump have 270 electoral votes. You can be sure that nuclear lawfare will take place as everybody sues everybody else, electors go rogue, etc. etc.

This would be a bonafide "Constitutional crisis" --yea, verily, the Constitution hanging by a thread. And off we go down the 25th Amendment rabbit hole. Here are two articles where that scenario is played out, and guess whom this writer has a plum part for? Yea, verily, my once and former Governor and would-be ( but now) Senator, the Mittster his very self!

https://www.spartareport.com/2020/08/the-grand-bargain/

https://www.spartareport.com/2020/08/and-if-the-grand-bargain-is-struck/

Now suppose this fanciful scenario "came to pass," and the Mittster finds himself at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Would he believe himself to be anointed because he can now fulfill the Whitehorse Prophecy? And what would the old boys in the COB do, having disavowed the Prophecy, now that they see it fulfilled before their very eyes?

I post these as "rye" food for thought and without endorsement. It does seem that we are the subject of a Chinese curse or two (or three): not just the Wuhan Virus, but "interesting times."

This is your pipe dream.

caffiend, that "analysis" is unhinged. It makes a number of assumptions that have no constitutional or legal basis. It's like assuming pigs can fly, choose to do so, then run into a herd of winged tyrannosauruses and decide to land in Washington and install a Latin-speaking duckling in the White House.

The logic is that convoluted. So what's the point?

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's suppose--just suppose--that election
> irregularities (various causes and various
> partisan activities in key states mean that
> neither Biden nor Trump have 270 electoral votes.
> You can be sure that nuclear lawfare will take
> place as everybody sues everybody else, electors
> go rogue, etc. etc.
>
> This would be a bonafide "Constitutional crisis"
> --yea, verily, the Constitution hanging by a
> thread. And off we go down the 25th Amendment
> rabbit hole. Here are two articles where that
> scenario is played out, and guess whom this writer
> has a plum part for? Yea, verily, my once and
> former Governor and would-be ( but now) Senator,
> the Mittster his very self!
>
> https://www.spartareport.com/2020/08/the-grand-bar
> gain/
>
> https://www.spartareport.com/2020/08/and-if-the-gr
> and-bargain-is-struck/
>
> Now suppose this fanciful scenario "came to pass,"
> and the Mittster finds himself at 1600
> Pennsylvania Avenue? Would he believe himself to
> be anointed because he can now fulfill the
> Whitehorse Prophecy? And what would the old boys
> in the COB do, having disavowed the Prophecy, now
> that they see it fulfilled before their very
> eyes?
>
> I post these as "rye" food for thought and without
> endorsement. It does seem that we are the subject
> of a Chinese curse or two (or three): not just the
> Wuhan Virus, but "interesting times."

If the situation that no one is elected by January 20th, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi becomes the president.

That alone will destroy the constitution.

Does the Constitution state that the House Speaker will become president if no one is elected by January 20th? QED

No, it does not.

The SCOTUS 'might' decide that the application of the Meaning of the founders was for the House Speaker to ascend if no one else was legally selected, but it's a far reach, even further than Mittens ascending to save the country/democracy/republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

"Section 3 of the 20th Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president."

This is what I was talking about.


tumwater: If the Constitution says the House Speaker becomes President until the matter is settled by Congress, the Constitution is not destroyed. We're doing what the dang thing says should be done.

Two possible causes: The Speaker would be elected by the NEW House (Nov. 2020 election). Because of undecided House seats, the incoming House might not be able to 1) achieve a quorum, or if it does 2) create a majority from one party (or coalition of factions) to elect a speaker.

And suppose the House does elect a Speaker, who then takes the Presidential oath of office. Would that Speaker as "Acting President" yield the office when the Electors finally convene and Trump or Biden achieve 270 votes? "No--I took the oath, and I consider the Electoral College's electors to be invalid, so I'm not stepping down."

All this is hypothetical. There would be no cabinet with secretaries to run through in order. This could be real banana republic time.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Would that Speaker as "Acting President" yield the
> office when the Electors finally convene and Trump
> or Biden achieve 270 votes? "No--I took the oath,
> and I consider the Electoral College's electors to
> be invalid, so I'm not stepping down."
>
------------------------------------------------------

You sure you're talking about the Speaker?

I really need to go to bed. Hopefully this comment will be cogent and not rife with typos and subject-verb disagreement.

The most important thing about the Unites States is that every 2, 4, 6, and 8 years we have a peaceful transfer of power.

The only Constitutional crisis we had was when the SCOTUS inserted itself into a political question by ruling on hanging chads.

The only person in recent memory who has repeatedly raised the spectre of an illegitimate election result is the current Executive. He did it in 2016, and he's doing it now.

The Speaker doesn't want to be president because Congress has more power than the Executive. The Framers designed it that way because we don't like kings/dictators. They intentionally made Article I all about Congress. The first Article. Numero uno. Congress. Oversight, advice and consent - these are huge powers.

The Framers were meh on the Executive branch and SCOTUS was almost an afterthought until John Marshall said "Not so fast and thanks for not delivering the mail, Madison!" The BEST thing George Washington did was to step down even when people wanted him to stay. It's lucky that he didn't have sons - dynasties are not good.

There are no squatters in the White House or in the offices on the Hill. You win you're in. You lose you're out. That is how we do it here.

If the Electoral College continues to disagree with the popular vote (I'm not talking about unfaithful electors - I'm just talking numbers), we're going to be in deep poop. It happened with W in 2000, and it happened in 2016. We can't have a truly representative democracy if that chasm exists much longer.

Government exists to do the things we cannot do for ourselves. We choose how they get those things done by voting for people most aligned with our ideas of what our society should look like. When millions of people have their votes tossed, we have a HUGE problem.

blah blah bed



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2020 03:12AM by Beth.

Okay - last thought. For real.

If anything positive comes out of this horrific pandemic aside from leaps and bounds in scientific discovery and reforms to the inequities built into healthcare and NIMBY environmental crap, it's this: That kid who grew up in Storm Lake, Iowa and now finds herself as an adult living in Atherton, CA can move back to her beautiful town of 10,000 souls and work from there. People who left middle America can now go back to bucolic areas where they can raise their kids while making a decent living and pump that money into the local economy. The HUGE assumption is that this will purple America and help negate the Electoral College SNAFU. Many will also become more conservative as they grow older because that's what a lot of people do.

There are huge inequities that would allow for this demographic shift through in migration (not immigration, although immigration will save social security if people just opened their damned eyes and got on board with self-interest rightly understood). Rural gentrification would suck, too. But that might be where we're headed.

Purple America, where Steve King never holds elected office again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2020 03:06AM by Beth.

Beth wrote in part:

"The only Constitutional crisis we had was when the SCOTUS inserted itself into a political question by ruling on hanging chads."

Not true. Nobody today is around to remember this, but in 1876, the election ended in a virtual tie between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel B. Tilden. The victory went to Rutherford B. Hayes when the Republicans agreed to withdraw U.S. troops from the former Confederacy.

Indeed. I appreciate the correction, blindguy.

Two reasons why the banana republic scenario, at least caffiend's version of it, won't play out.

First, there is almost zero probability that the Dems lose control of the House. So there will be a Speaker, a Dem Speaker, in place on January 20th.

Second, Pelosi (assuming it is she) would resign when the president is confirmed by the electoral college. As Beth noted, Washington's greatest act as president was stepping down. King George asked his advisors what GW would do at the end of his second term. "Resign and go back to farming," they said, to which the king replied, "then he will be the greatest man in the world."

Most presidents are unremarkable and little remembered. Some one-term presidents fare better in the history books than the majority of two-termers. Pelosi knows that if she were to take the helm and then turn power over to the elected president, she becomes a new Washington: someone who relinquished power in the interests of the union.

Having said that, the US already is in banana republic territory. The president of the United States has deployed military units in the streets for reasons far less honorable than those which motivated Lincoln. The great role, the heroic role, will be played by someone who returns the United States to its historical norms; not someone who perpetuates the evolution towards a tin-pot dictatorship.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, there is almost zero probability that the
> Dems lose control of the House.

This year, anything could happen. Prepare to be shocked, but not surprised. (I think the 2018 Dem House pickups were a fluke.)

> So there will be a Speaker, a Dem Speaker, in place on January 20th.

The scenarios I linked to were fanciful speculation, the most fanciful being the selection of Romney as President Pro Tempore as a compromise candidate. You might find the "Transition Integrity Project" a.k.a. the Washington War Games, where 60+ political operatives role-played different actors according to different election outcomes. John ("Password: PASSWORD") Podesta, the man who delivered Clinton's non-concession speech, role-played Basement Joe. In one scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington seceded!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/

> Second, Pelosi (assuming it is she) would resign when the >president is confirmed by the electoral college.

Again, we may be in uncharted waters. Suppose it goes to the House, and subsequent vote-counting or legal wrangling determines that Trump won? Quite a few partisans would consider his electoral college 270 invalid, just as they did Bush 2000. Pelosi might give heed to those voices and accede, or be forced to act, accordingly. This is the woman who said she'd impeach him upon his election in 2016, and then did just that.

> Pelosi knows...

Perhaps you're privy to her thoughts? I myself regard her as more partisan than patriot. But that's just me.
>
> The president of the United
> States has deployed military units in the streets
> for reasons far less honorable than those which
> motivated Lincoln.

The Trump administration has conferred with governors when Federal officers or troops have been deployed. When military, I believe these have always been National Guard forces and not regular Army.

> ...the evolution towards a tin-pot
> dictatorship.

Two bonus points for not using the word "Nazi."

Yes, I am not privy to Pelosi's thinking. That is supposition on my part. I do think, however, that if there is uncertainty about the electoral outcome, it'll go to the supremes as a new hanging-chad issue.

Regarding the use of troops in the United States, what I had in mind was that stunt in front of the White House. There were no consultations with the mayor, and the troops were not exclusively national guard. Moreover the chairman of the joint chiefs was present at the site, which is not something one sees in stable democracies.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding the use of troops in the United States,
> what I had in mind was that stunt in front of the
> White House. There were no consultations with the
> mayor, and the troops were not exclusively
> national guard. Moreover the chairman of the
> joint chiefs was present at the site, which is not
> something one sees in stable democracies.

There it is. The Republic, hanging by a chad.

;+)

Assuming that all of these unlikely events all occur as spelled out in your posted scenario, the following happens

The House cannot select a speaker, so it goes to the Senate. If the Democrats have 51 seats, they do not select Romney. So it must be that the Republicans have at least 51 seats, so they the select Romney as president pro-tem. For Romney to take office, the Senate would have to be unable to select a Vice President under the XII amendment - meaning that they cannot get the required 2/3 quorum- presumably because a number of Democrats stay away. Under all of those events, Romney becomes acting president.

That leads to the failure of this scenario as presented. As stated in your scenario "in the ongoing spirit of bipartisanship, the ideal Vice President would be Democrat Senator Kamala Harris". At that point, when the Senate is ready to vote for VP, the missing democratic senators appear creating the 2/3 quorum. When the Senate then votes for Harris to be Vice President, the XII amendment then takes effect and Harris becomes acting president.

I was referring to the speaker destroying in constitution, I don't like her.

Thank you for your cogent and insightful analysis. You should apply to the Hoover Institution; they are always looking for scholars of your caliber.

It didn't destroy the constitution that other time. Think about Gerald Ford.

Chicago politics is nothing new. Maybe on a national level but probably not.

Show me a city without a political machine.

Surely the obvious problem would be an incumbent refusing to leave office if he loses the election.

Yes.

Constitution hanging by a thread-

That's like a bad movie that's stuck in your mind, can't un- conscious it.

It done fell.

Failed state.

I live by this motto:

"Once the people realize they can use the ballot box to vote themselves 'free money', Amazon will take over that country."

Franklin said that--just after inventing the internet.

How does a written document hang by a thread?

I heard this kind of crapola when I first joined the church. It really made me feel like I had insider info.

Turns out that mormonism has always been a crap salad of religion, self aggrandizement, political power, persecution, paranoia, and money.

So much for thinking that I was special...

The constitution was written on paper with high rag content.

Lowpriest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does a written document hang by a thread?

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Metaphor!

This reminds me of all the guys who said they needed lots of guns to protect us from our own government. Then when the federal troops arrive to occupy, the guns nuts join the soldiers. The gun nuts shoot at protesters!

The vigilantes hate the government less than they hate the "other." And too often the police share their priorities.

Would you like a bottle of water?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The vigilantes hate the government less than they
> hate the "other." And too often the police share
> their priorities.

Depends which vigilantes you mean. One bunch of vigilantes openly want to defund the police (lefties) and one bunch see them as part of the NWO (righties)

as I have some of the old ward members as fb friends. My daughter has yet to post something like that as she wasn't raised a mormon and it amazes me what she doesn't know.

As for Mitt, I think he is still wondering what the hell happened as he KNEW he was going to win, as did his dear wife. He can't figure out how Trump won and he couldn't. I'm sure with his huge ego he knew that was his time, but probably in his mind the time was not right yet.

I just can’t resist chiming in on this White Horse Prophesy subject. Honestly this crazy belief should have been put to rest decades ago.

First, and for the record, the WHP is promoted by fundamentalist (polygamist) splinter groups and is not doctrine within the COJCOLDS. Anyone who read the official Church statement issued during Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency,knows the WHP is not supported by historical research. Please read the Fair Mormon account and Wikipedia page. Both say about the same thing.

During the early part of the 20th century someone toggled together a few sentences spoken by Joseph Smith Jr. and added a few of his own and called it prophesy.

Please, let’s read up on this subject so I don’t have to keep setting my family straight on the issue.

Not quite true. The WHP has indeed been disavowed by the church; however, the constitution hanging by a thread has not. They are technically two different things, although the hanging constitution is incorporated as part of the WHP.

The hanging constitution has been spoken of multiple times by multiple presidents over the pulpit, and was one of ETB's favorites.

If your point is that they are used interchangeably when they should not be, then you are correct.

The idea that a white horse prophecy that was never printed in mormon canon will suddenly occur is almost as ridiculous as thinking LDS Inc. will use its $100B to help people.

To add, what's even more ridiculous is thinking a failed presidential candidate-turned Utah Senator, who constantly tries to help his sons to take more of that state's land for speculation and insider deals, will somehow rise up to bring freedom for all. Lol!

And I thought getting your own planet for not drinking Dr. Pepper was the greatest form of self delusion.

Exercising your rights makes them stronger. Then the lefts hurt so you exercise them too. Without exercise, what's either side to do? Get weak!

Unite or Divide?
People vs. power-

One People!
One Moment!
One Love!

Like I said, it's a bad movie that's living rent-free in your brain.


the extremes of the political spectrum ought to trade sides for a while to get their brains out of hibernation.

me: with Donnie in the WH... if there is a Deep State, I'm so Fing hoping / glad the ship of state has a stronger keel than the madman's rudder.

The Constitution only hangs by a thread when the democrats have a president in the white house.

"Plague, riots, depression."... all good!

> The Constitution hangs by a threa[t] when the
Republicocrats have a resident in the grey house.
>
> "Plague, riots, depression."... [NOT] good!

Some people want to take sides (vs. leave them) when the taking is good.

When a liar is talking, it doesn't matter what side they are on (trying to divide). Truth trumps fiction. Friction is useless.

One side doesn't save and the other waste. Both sides can be wasted.

Sometimes both sides are the outside, according to our inside information. I'll take it out pretty soon... like the trash.

Watch when people are talking out of both sides of their mouth: saying one thing but meaning, and doing, another.

Read between the lines. Just don't stand in them.

I genuinely think the US Constitution is hanging by a thread right now. There are a lot of threats to freedom - the militarization of policing, the funding of various "grassroots" movements by billionaires via the Open Society group and Heritage Foundation, race riots, polarization of political viewpoints to the point people don't talk to each other... And a very bloated shadow state (security services) which is not answerable to the public but has vast funding. The internet is also becoming increasingly censored.