A Constitutional Mulligan? Trump Calls Again for a “Redo” of the 2020 Election

Last week, many of us expressed alarm over a statement by former President Trump that we might have to “terminate” constitutional rules in light of the release of the Twitter files. He has now denied saying that but repeats that the disclosures should mean that the election is “redone.”  There are no constitutional Mulligans in presidential elections.

There is a legitimate demand for an investigation into this scandal and censorship that clearly had some impact on the close election.

However, while I have been a vocal critic of Twitter and the full mobilization of media, political, and corporate interests against Musk, any suggestion that constitutional rules could be terminated or suspended is both dangerous and demagogic.

For that reason, I was glad to see Trump walking back the statement but there remain deeply troubling aspects to the continued call for the election to be “redone.”

On Monday, Trump insisted that he does not want to “terminate” the Constitution:

“The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS.”

However, the earlier posting was unequivocal in stating that the Twitter disclosures “allows for the termination of all rules … even those found in the Constitution.”

As I stated at the time, there is no basis for termination or suspension of constitutional rules in such a case. Moreover, the misconduct of one company would never be accepted by a court as grounds for retroactively reevaluating a presidential election two years later.

Notably, there was ample evidence of raw fraud in states like Illinois that may have given Kennedy his victory over Nixon. However, the election was not “redone” in light of those allegations.

In his latest posting, Trump repeated that

“steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG…Simply put, if an election is irrefutably fraudulent, it should go to the rightful winner or, at a minimum, be redone … Where open and blatant fraud is involved, there should be no time limit for change!”

Putting aside the clarification on the call for termination of such rules, there is no basis upon which a court could order an election in 2020 to be “redone.” The implications of such a power are chilling. Such judicial intervention could be used by judges to “redo” future elections when they disapprove of a candidate or party. It is an invitation to judicial activism and would be destabilizing for our constitutional system as a whole.

It is unclear what Trump is now demanding. Should a court declare him the winner and order the start of a new four-year term — negating the 2024 election? Would the court order a vote in 2022 and then another vote in 2024? None of that is even remotely possible on a legal basis.

Moreover, before declaring that the election is to be “redone,” the court would have to not only find that the company engaged in election fraud but that such fraud was determinative or decisive in the election. How does it do that? There were a myriad of issues pushing voters that year. A court could not say with any sense of confidence that Twitter’s conduct determined the outcome.

My concern is that such postings create a false impression for citizens that such a “redo” is possible. It fuels extraconstitutional demands on our system. We have the oldest and most successful constitutional system in history because it is not subject to such improvisation or impulse.

Besides, there is a practical redo in the works. Trump is already running in 2024. We do not have to “undo” 2020 when the public will have a renewed chance to vote for Trump in 2024.

352 thoughts on “A Constitutional Mulligan? Trump Calls Again for a “Redo” of the 2020 Election”

  1. “[T]here is no basis for termination or suspension of constitutional rules in such a case.” (JT)

    I could not find anything in the Constitution that even speaks to “such a case” — *this* case, with its particulars about alleged rigging, et al. Anybody know what the “constitutional rules” are that JT’s referring to?

    (Though possibly a mistake, that is a sincere question.)

    1. The rules in the Constitution are the Clauses and Amendment specifying the way in which the Electoral College functions. That is supplemented by the text of the Electoral Count Act.

      1. “The rules in the Constitution . . .”

        Someone does not understand the meaning of: “in such a case.”

        1. Perhaps that someone is you.

          The Clauses and Amendment specifying the way in which the Electoral College functions apply to this case too.

          1. “Perhaps that someone is you.”

            Oh, hand-waving one. There is nothing in the Constitution that speaks to “such a case.”

            If there is, cite it — along with the particular *facts* of *this* case.

            1. You’ve got your hands over your eyes. The Clauses and Amendment specifying the way in which the Electoral College functions apply to ALL presidential elections including THIS case.

              I should have known better than to answer your question. You don’t want an accurate answer if it comes from a liberal.

              1. “The Clauses and Amendment . . .”

                Plese do cite the langauge in that section of the Constitution that speaks to a presidential election *redo*. (I’ll be waiting — until eternity.)

                Yet again, you are attempting to deceive via dropping the context of *this* case.

              2. “I should have known better . . . from a liberal.”

                You should have known better than to attempt such an obvious, lie-based smear. (See abortion, for example.)

                But, then, to know better would require a conscience.

  2. Reminder: 2nd Amendment gun rights are part of the U.S. Constitution that Trump wants to terminate.

    The “Conservative” U.S. Supreme Court has already severely weakened another constitutional right that Republicans favor “Eminent Domain” or the seizing of private property in the “Kelo v. City of New London” ruling a few years ago.

    If this court took away eminent domaine rights, why not gun rights?

  3. I don’t think the Founders would want our country operating with institutionalized propaganda and the rabble voting masses. If our leaders cared about anything other than ripping off this country and bribing the public with their own money, then we would have added 4-5 amendments over the last 20 years.

  4. I agree with Trump 100%. The system is so completely broken and the evidence of the steal is so accessible and obvious it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.
    Biden and his demon cohorts should be removed immediately and Trump given the remainder of the term and the ability to run in 2024 as compensation for the theft ignoring the 2 term limit.
    I frankly don’t care what pomp and circumstance is created to do it. The flat out criminality in our faces is far worse than any idea of “a stable republic” or the constant cries of too much danger…
    We’re past all that already. We all know Obama wasn’t eligible because his daddy wasn’t an American and the big lie was pretending it was about Hawaii birth. We were lied to about Iraq. We saw the Clintons sellout to China and have so many criminal scandals all swept under the rug and their multi billion dollar slush fund just keeps reeling on…
    Nope, we’ve had it – we don’t care what all the criminal DC masters have to say about stability or anyone can do it anytime then for any reason…NOPE.
    we all know the election was stolen we’ve seen the graphs with the vertical spikes at 3am. we’ve seen the charts of the census vs the counties and the final count with the mathematical impossibilities that confirm 100% the election was stolen, we’ve seen the downballot evidence, and many other proofs and NONE that go the other way.
    Trump is absolutely correct and everyone knows it. We saw the hatred of the Dc machine and their many adherents, we’ve seen the admissions from Time mag, we’ve seen the revealed texts that were not illegally deleted, and we’ve seen all the criminals get away with everything without a single one of them paying.
    since the law is completely lawless and only has a haphazard totally translucent lying shield for cover, it does not matter anyway.
    Toss out the criminals and put the real winner in, period.
    No new election. No do-overs for cheating thieves.
    All you prissy DC eyebrow lickers can work up your retentive fake legal drama so the plebes can feel it official, but we really do not care. Set it straight and then shut up and get to cleaning up the criminal shame that caused it all instead of making worthless excuses about stability or past thefts no one alive except the geriatric can possibly half confirm. BTW in that one the democrats stole it too. So nothing has changed, it has only gotten far worse.
    I agree with TRUMP, got it. Now deal with it, putting you criminals back in line is required.

    1. Biden was elected by the Electoral College and that vote was certified by Congress. Trump lost. He is simply a sore (and narcissistic) loser.

  5. What is Constitutional about stealing an election? What is the remedy?

    “Fight on, my men,” says Sir Andrew Barton,
    “I am hurt, but I am not slain;
    I’ll lay me down and bleed a while,
    And then I’ll rise and fight again.”

    Never give up.

    1. Trump always was right.

      Trump is correct; a crime must be remedied.

      Trump said we might have to temporarily “terminate” (i.e. suspend) constitutional rules to remedy an egregious crime.

      What is constitutional about stealing an election?

      Answer: Nothing.

      What is the remedy?

      Answer: A runoff.

  6. perhaps repeal of section 1 of the 20th amendment might help. It would move the inauguration back to March thereby giving more time for recounts and litigation. Not a perfect solution but allows for a more orderly transfer of power. Meanwhile leave it up to the states to clean up their acts.

  7. In my view Donald Trump was a historically great president that served our country well with his novel approach to governance and enacting many excellent policies. He showed us a better way to serve the people of this country, which we should learn from as we move forward. However, he also, unnecessarily, sullied his reputation with his childish, narcissistic and frankly, un-Christian like verbal assaults and tirades. I know many people found all that refreshing and a sign he’s a fighter. But a real leader would fight back and persuade with substance, facts and a positive, confident tone, e.g. Ronald Regan. Seeing no real signs that he is ready to become that type of leader, I am simply tired of his act. I am TIRED OF TRUMP!

  8. In 1960, someone asked Senator Everet Dirksen of Illinois why the republicans didn’t contest the votes from dead people in Chicago for Kennedy. His reply, that’s because dead people in southern Illinois voted for Nixon.

  9. Don’t forget Hillory, She paid for the fake Russian Dossier and told the media. When you lie long enough it becomes true and I bet that swayed voters in 2020.

  10. I like Trumps policies, but he has to stop shooting himself in the foot. The man just has to learn to zip it.

  11. If we are going to throw out Constitutional rules and start over, I think we should change the system so that the President is elected by popular vote so that everyone’s vote counts – not just those people in swing states.

    It would force the Republican Party in particular to come up with a platform which appeals to the majority of Americans in order to be competitive, which would be a good exercise for them and would strengthen our electoral system.

  12. If you believe that anything this TV clown says would be dangerous to and mislead the American people Professor, you don’t have much understanding of the American people

  13. Maybe we can’t redo that election but we sure should call it null and void in the eyes of Americans after all the corruption, collusion and down right interference. Let the prog/left democrats and the biden crime family be written of as the most undeserving and corrupt bunch in our history and then move on. Tell it like it was/is and let them live in their infamy. The only problem there is that the left has no sense of honor or shame but it would be some balm upon the wound to this nation.

  14. “… any suggestion that constitutional rules could be terminated or suspended is both dangerous and demagogic.”

    LOL — They’re called “Amendments,” professor. I’m rather surprised that you haven’t heard of them, without which slavery would still be legal and women would not be allowed to vote. And there’s also the 25th Amendment which allows for the removal from office of a duly-elected president. And, of course, there’s Impeachment. I suppose there isn’t much precedent — not at the presidential level anyway — but it’s not hard to make an argument for impeaching a president who was not legitimately elected.

    AND there’s also a saying and a general principle of law, that “fraud vitiates EVERYTHING.”

    In any event, NOBODY who ever supported or voted for Trump did so under the belief that he is an expert orator or accomplished wordsmith or has any deep knowledge of the law. He’s neither a politician nor lawyer. Some of our WORST presidents have been lawyers, and some of our best were not lawyers. Washington was a surveyor, and Jefferson, and architect. Trump is a real estate developer, and his strongest personal quality, aside from his willingness to fight for what he believes in, is his ability to say what’s on his mind, sans varnish.

    Consequently, there are many media types who attempt to interpret what Trump says under some rigorous semantic standards while always bending their interpretation to the extreme negative meaning instead of just trying to understand what Trump means. Mostly these types of media hacks are just looking to find fault with someone they either don’t like personally or oppose politically — and in your case, professor it seems like BOTH apply.

    But a normal person — that is, the law’s theoretical “reasonable person” — doesn’t have a difficult time understanding that Trump is making a COMMON SENSE argument — articulated poorly perhaps — that a fraudulent election should be nullified.

    I actually think most people — most “reasonable people” — would agree with that philosophy. It would have been nice if Trump had a better command of language and deeper knowledge of the law, but again, those aren’t qualities that are high on the list of reasons people voted for him and will vote for him again. There are reasons half the country didn’t vote for a lawyer in 2016 and 2020. Lawyers probably rank as low in general public esteem as the media, and probably for the same reason related to absence of ethics, morality, and/or integrity.

    In this specific instance, nitpicking what Trump said and trying to find fault isn’t a particularly admirable quality in someone that was once such a frenetic booster of another accomplished lawyer — Michael Avenatti:

    In Avenatti’s case, the quality of your personal judgment can actually be quantified — measured in years that he has been sentenced to serve in prison — upgraded to 19 years at sentencing just this last Monday — due to ethical and legal misconduct, much of which was ongoing at the very time you made the aforementioned glowing assessment of his character and legal abilities.

    So I’ll close, without intending to cast aspersions, by mentioning that some might consider it unseemly — maybe even “demagogic” — for a person who works for Fox, a media organization whose owner vehemently opposes Trump and recently purchased Jeb DeSantis with a “book deal” — no doubt with intent to release the book in time for the 2024 presidential campaign — to interpret what Trump said as being “demagogic,” when it is clearly rooted in common sense understanding that people who steal an election shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it — not because they stole it from Trump, but because they stole it from America, from Americans, and from the Constitution.

    PS: I’m not going to argue here about the EVIDENCE that the election was stolen. It does exist, and is voluminous, but this isn’t the forum for that. Instead, I’ll simply cite the June 23, 2021, Rasmussen poll and article titled “55% of Voters Support Election Audits”:

    “Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republican voters support forensic election audits like the one in Arizona, as do 38% of Democrats and 57% of voters not affiliated with either major party. A majority of Republicans (70%) don’t believe Biden won the 2020 presidential election fairly, a belief shared by 10% of Democrats and 45% of unaffiliated voters.”

    1. Without amendments, we would also not have “guaranteed” (in quotes because the left wants to strip us of these guarantees) freedome of speech, the right to bear arms, freedome of religious exercise, etc.

      As has been noted elsewhere, when evidence is gerrymandered and/or suppressed, and such gerrymandering and/or suppression ignored by the courts. what recourse have we for honest and transparent elections?

      Of course, thje swamp-dwellers want nothing of the kind – they are deliriously happy to go back to counting the votes until the tally comes out the way they want it to.

      Excellent comment, Mr. De Minimus.

  15. There is a way to proceed with nearly corrupt free elections. Single day of voting, from 12 am in Maine to 12 Midnight in Guam, All in person, no absentee ballots except for military, voter ID required for every election and verifies citizenship, all registered over 1 week before election, no Election Day registration. Just like all of Europe and India. Paper ballots would be nice but there are too many jurisdictions with too many local and state elections at the same time and would be a logistical nitemare if one site needs ballots or you run out of ballots and need to have new ones printed on the day of election. (Who does the printing, who does the supervision and who keeps track of the ballots before and after voting.
    Electronic voting is still the best but this might be a situation where the feds set the conditions, test the equipment and certify its use and training of elections officials. And no one else. Especially for federal elections.
    No redo’s. But maybe congress can tell the courts who has standing and who does not. Standing is a convenient way to avoid decision making.

    1. GEB,
      They set up a new system here.
      Go in, tell them who you are, you verify your name and address. Digitally sign. Two people verify that you are who you say you are (I know one of them, he is a neighbor) THEN the computer prints off a ballot. The woman gives it to me (I know her too, also a neighbor) and instructs how to fill it out (she has to). I go to the little booth and fill it out. Then insert it into a scantron like scanner, it verifies and registers my ballot.
      Otherwise, I agree with your suggestion.
      As I had family overseas, non-military, I would add US citizens go to the embassy or consulates and in person vote there, which I believe is the way they do it now.

  16. The Trump Organization was just yesterday criminally convicted of tax fraud in a scheme which lasted for years up to an including Trump’s time in the White House.

    Imagine if Trump’s tax fraud had been revealed before the 2016 election. He would have lost in a landslide. We should act as if he lost and kick out of office all the Judges which were appointed under him.

    1. Trump is corrupt and a malignant narcissist, but he was legally elected and the judges he appointed were legally confirmed, and the only recourse is impeachment, which is unfounded. It’s no better for you to argue that we act unconstitutionally to kick them out of office than for Trump to argue that we act unconstitutionally.

      1. Aside from the leading vitriol an amazingly wise post from someone on the left.

        I woudl note Trump did not argue that we act unconstitutionally. He argued that we change the constitution.
        He may not have picked the perfect word, but he was clearly not asking for unconstitutional action.

        He is actually wrong because what we need to do is follow the constitution.
        We have not been doing that.

    2. “Imagine if Trump’s tax fraud had been revealed before the 2016 election. He would have lost in a landslide. “

      Sophomore, it isn’t a big deal. I will copy a portion of my response to Enigma. Then you can tell me if you still feel that way. You need to differentiate politics from reality.

      Take any large corporation and the government can find not just 1.6 million but many multiples of that. Stay tuned, the fines might stay but the jail term might go poof.

      If you search the large companies you will find examples of a multiplicity of fines, Here is an example.

      Merck Pleads Guilty and Pays $950 Million for Illegal Promotion of Vioxx
      A fine tooth comb search of any large company will reveal fines and potential guilt of their executives.

      If you want to know more and deal with knowledge listen to Howard Root’s video on the net, ~50 minutes or read his book. He and his company were charged, but he fought the government and won after spending a fortune, about $25 million. He did nothing wrong. The government did everything wrong.

      Here is the blurb from Amazon:
      Who polices America’s prosecutors? And when they set their sights on an innocent CEO, can he survive a 5-year, $25 million legal labyrinth to save the company he built, and himself from prison? Howard Root started Vascular Solutions with little more than a dream and an idea for a single medical device. Fifteen years later, his Minnesota company had created over 500 American jobs and developed more than 50 new medical devices that saved and improved lives. But in 2011, the federal government threatened to destroy his company and put Howard behind bars for years. Why? Federal prosecutors had been sold a bill of goods – a tall tale peddled by a money-hungry ex-employee out for revenge. All over one device. A device that never harmed a single patient and made up less than 1% of the company s sales. The investigation revealed the charges to be baseless, but the scalp-hunting prosecutors didn’t back off. Instead they dug in – threatening witnesses, misleading grand juries, and strategically leaking secret documents. Whatever it took to pressure a headline-grabbing settlement. Howard Root stood up to the shakedown. Five years, 121 attorneys and $25 million in legal fees later, his life’s work and freedom rested in the hands of 12 strangers in a San Antonio jury room. Would Howard and his company be vindicated by the verdict, or had he made the biggest mistake of his life by challenging the federal government? Cardiac Arrest is the eye-opening true story of life on the Feds’ hit-list, told from the desk of a CEO who decided to fight back. Follow Howard from the boardroom to the courtroom, as he tells the inside story of the case that sparked outrage in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and triggered a congressional investigation.
      Read the book or listen to his video ~50 minutes. You will learn something you need to know. You will become smarter and sound more intelligent.
      Your victory over the Trump Organization is a non-victory. $1.6 million (Merck on one of many claims was $950 Million) for a company that run about 500 different businesses is nothing. It is an ignorant poor man’s claim to fame.
      I had a 5 year battle with the federal government where the government broke the most fundamental laws. I won and it didn’t cost me that much because I fired my lawyer within the first month. It was a shakedown.

    3. Sophomore, can you imagine what what would have happened if the Hunter Biden tapes weren’t withheld? A landline win for Trump.

      Add to that all the other allegations against Biden. A landslide for anyone but Biden.

      Add to that recounting all the lies Biden spoke that were significant? A landslide for anyone but Biden.

    4. Given that his accountant just testified in the case you cite that Trump has been losing money for a decade – why is it you think his tax return would have mattered ?

      Further why is it your business ?

      Why do you think other people think like you ?

      I doubt you voted for Trump – the tax return would not have changed your vote.
      Why do you think it would hcange the vote of people who voted for Trump ?

      Finally if as you claim producing Trump’s tax return in 2016 would have flipped the election,
      then failure to supress the hunter Binden laptop would also have flipped 2020.

    5. Sophomore, If you are new to the list and use email you received Anonymous the Stupid’s comment that he placed on an email he knew would be erased because he was banned. That is why it doesn’t exist on the blog.

      ATS is a nasty and vile person who makes sure he is anonymous so he can deny what he says. When he gets frustrated he writes notes intentionally on a banned email so it will be deleted. That is the type of spiteful person he is.

      If you are one of the trolls using multiple names, then I don’t have to tell you what type of person you are, you already know. I think the best of people so I will discuss things with you rationally.

      Statement by Anonymous the Stupid follows:
      @ sophomore:
      You’re right. (Wishful thinking on the part of S. Meyer…)

  17. I am surprised Democrats have been willing to take time away from implementing their own unconstitutional policies in order to criticize Trump’s idle thoughts about unconstitutional policies. Obama’s DACA executive order was unconstitutional by his own admission. Biden’s college tuition debt reduction order was unconstitutional according to Nancy Pelosi, who seems, now, to have changed her mind. The federal government working together with Twitter to censor political speech was clearly unconstitutional yet had widespread support among Democrats. Roe v Wade was unconstitutional yet had widespread support among Democrats. And racial discrimination in college admissions, which has widespread support among Democrats, will soon be found to be unconstitutional.

    1. The problem with Nixon/Kennedy is that Nixon didn’t contest the election to spare America the divisive process that would have ensued. That let democrats know they could cheat and get away with it, and here we are.

Leave a Reply