Thomas Loxley – 8/27/17

This page was last updated on September 2, 2017.

We should demand a runoff election; Thomas Loxley; Beaver County Times; August 27, 2017.

Previous Thomas Loxley (TL) letters I reviewed were “Chaos is invariably a harbinger of destruction,” “Don’t be misled; global warming is real,” “Immigration and defense polices are contradictory,” “Putin plans to destroy America from within,” “Can Americans accept the challenge of democracy,” “Will GOP overreach destroy the party,” “Election interference demands a runoff” and “Cracker plant will turn Beaver into Stinkville.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I commend modern France for anticipating our problem. Their election laws specify clear requirements for mandatory runoff elections in the wake of any major controversy. Their national imperative is to insure the sound democratic authority of any elected leadership.”

[RWC] There is nothing correct in this paragraph.

First, TL can’t even get his terminology correct. A runoff election occurs only when no candidate wins a majority of votes. As per Article 7 of France’s Constitution (FC),

“The President of the Republic shall be elected by an absolute majority of votes cast. If such a majority is not obtained on the first ballot, a second ballot shall take place on the fourteenth day thereafter. Only the two candidates polling the greatest number of votes in the first ballot, after any withdrawal of better placed candidates, may stand in the second ballot.”

TL’s referring to a recall election.

Article 68 of the FC covers removal of the President from office.

“The President of the Republic shall not be removed from office during the term thereof on any grounds other than a breach of his duties patently incompatible with his continuing in office. Such removal from office shall be proclaimed by Parliament sitting as the High Court.

“The proposal to convene the High Court adopted by one or other of the Houses of Parliament shall be immediately transmitted to the other House which shall make its decision known within fifteen days of receipt thereof.

“The High Court shall be presided over by the President of the National Assembly. It shall give its ruling as to the removal from office of the President, by secret ballot, within one month. Its decision shall have immediate effect.

“Rulings given hereunder shall require a majority of two thirds of the members of the House involved or of the High Court. No proxy voting shall be allowed. Only votes in favour of the removal from office or the convening of the High Court shall be counted.

“An Institutional Act shall determine the conditions for the application hereof.”

What TL refers to as “any major controversy” the FC calls “a breach of his duties patently incompatible with his continuing in office.” Using TL’s language, who gets to define “any major controversy?” Does anyone want to see the abuse of Wisconsin’s recall provision at the national level? There’s a reason the U.S. Constitution (includes the 25th Amendment) doesn’t make it easy to remove a President from office.

“Like the proverbial pig-in-a-poke, Donald Trump’s election has literally turned the world upside down as everyone has gotten a good look at the beast. The belief in his business acumen was shattered by his obvious dependence on Russian oligarchs following multiple U.S. bankruptcies that defined him as a super loser.”

[RWC] I didn’t vote for Donald Trump (DT) because of his “business acumen.” I voted for DT because he pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices similar in their view of the law to justices like Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia. It usually takes a few years of court opinions to be sure, especially for Republican-appointed justices, but it appears DT kept his promise with his first appointment, Neil Gorsuch.

“Multiple investigations by the media and government are exposing him as an evil fraud and monster. The Russian meddling in the election and irresponsible actions by the former FBI director clearly threw the election for Trump. Talk of impeachment or Constitutional Amendment 25, declaring him unfit for office, only leave us saddled with his cohorts in this national crime.”

[RWC] “Multiple investigations by the media and government are exposing him as an evil fraud and monster?” There’s a real shocker. Not. Though DT’s approach makes him an easier target, he’s getting the same treatment as most high-profile Republicans in office.

Regarding “the former FBI director,” Director Comey threw a “get out of jail free card” at Mrs. Bill Clinton (D). Instead of thanking her lucky stars and shutting up, HRC threw Mr. Comey’s gift right back at him and kept Emailgate an issue.

“If necessary, a nationwide petition should be developed requesting the Supreme Court demand a belated runoff between Trump and Clinton, lest the nation slip into a potentially bloody civil war. Concerned citizens should look out for further developments.”

[RWC] TL understands the U.S. Constitution about as well he understands France’s. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the Supreme Court the authority to demand “a belated runoff between Trump and Clinton.”