bvw said:
On what basis are the reasons so limited?
Quo warranto means "by what authority?". Traditionally, quo warranto could not be declared by anyone other than a king, ruler, or emperor. Should a subservient leader, lord, or ruler of authority claim control over lands owned by the crown, the supreme ruler would have demanded quo warranto against this individual or organization.
In this nation, quo warranto has only been granted to those who have direct interest in the claim to the elected position. Courts are very clear on this matter. Here are some "layman's term" quo warranto claims that would be considered valid:
- You are unauthorized, so doing my duty under your lack of authority subjects me to harm
- The pact or treaty is not valid if you do not legally represent the U.S.
- You are in my seat because I won the election, not you
- We are a state and we have direct standing to challenge your authority
- Your eligibility affects the office of the president and we are bound by the Constitution to ensure succession is adhered to and that candidates are qualified
We are clearly separated from these claims because we do not directly vote for the president. The electoral process protects the government from us and us from the government. This assumes that the government remains in check.
Our current recourse should be to continue to place pressure on state officials to take corrective action. It is the electoral process that is clearly broken. This is where we need to focus our efforts on. Once we hold electors and states accountable for state elections, we all have standing as we are voters with
direct interest in the election process. Any elector that places a vote on an ineligible candidate compromises the electoral college. Any Secretary of State who fails to abide by the Constitution compromises the electoral college. The electoral college is
our election.
This kind of necessary election reform ensures we will never get into this crisis ever again.