>>1484180

That's a cool graphic, but the procedure is all wrong, among other things.

Step 1 is accurate enough, although the distinction regarding "those ignored by the Obama DOJ, FBI & AG" is pointless.

Step 2 may very well accurate

However, leading to

Step 3: You wouldn't start by citing anything. You don't go to court to ask to do something. You do it, then defend it in Court if you must. Assuming (((they))) have the surrogates necessary/qualified (standing, finality, ripeness, exhaustion), then the opportunity would arise to cite case law.

Which leads to

Step 4: which would probably be cited before Step 3, for obvious logical threshold reasons.

Step 5: This would be done simultaneously w/ the actual implementation of marshal law/tribunals, which would come before any citing of case law, and would be an entirely different legal battle.

Step 6: Same as above, simultaneous.

>>1484417

That dude should ask his lawfag son exactly how that would work, and to analyze how the confirmation process factors into the equation.

Basically, we all know now that Obama's cabinet was chosen by citibank before he even became President.

We know Husseins birth certificate is fraudulent.

If it turns out that he's not a Citizen, born in America, it is true that his presidency was unconstitutional. Therefore, it is very likely that all of his executive orders are nullified.

However, what about his appointments? Further, what about the decisions/regulations his appointments promulgated? Were they appointed by and with the advice and consent of the senate? Yes & Yes. How do you walk back 8 years of regulation and adjudication, especially those that have fostered reliance?

Continuity of government is the goal here. The damage has been done. I'm sure there are sound legal theories that would support a complete rewind, however, is that a prudent option? Let alone the most prudent option?