For the civics nerds and institutional-design watchers:

If “pro-terrorist conduct” can become a magic phrase to strip university funding by press release, it can become a magic phrase to contest election credentials, unless we’re explicit about what legal thresholds actually constrain that power.

I’m not predicting stolen elections in 2026 or 2028. I’m pointing at a pattern: category labels (“terrorist,” “enemy,” “disloyal”) are increasingly being treated as if they are process, rather than claims that require process to adjudicate.

The Constitutional BaselineThe Constitutional Baseline

On opening day of a new Congress, members-elect show up with credentials, certificates from state officials attesting that this person was duly elected under state law. Article I gives each chamber the power to “judge the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

That power has historically covered two things:

1. Qualifications challenges: Does this person meet age, citizenship, and residency requirements? (Powell v. McCormack made clear Congress can’t invent new ones.)
2. Election contests: Are the certified returns accurate? Was there fraud or error in counting votes?

What it has not meant: “We don’t like the politics of the state that elected you, so we’re rejecting your credentials based on ideological accusations.”

Pattern Recognition: We’re seeing this nowPattern Recognition: We’re seeing this now

This is the same slide we’ve already watched on war powers. When the President can treat “operation” as a vibes-based word,
without clarifying whether it’s routine cooperation, covert action, or introducing forces into hostilities. Law becomes optional by ambiguity.

That’s the point: threshold words are getting hollowed out. Terms that are supposed to trigger specific legal frameworks become whatever is politically convenient to claim they mean.

When “operation” can mean anything from “sending an email” to “boots on the ground,” the War Powers Resolution becomes decorative. When “pro-terrorist” can mean anything from “materially supporting Hamas” to “didn’t condemn a protest loudly enough,” it stops functioning as a legal category. And when “credentials review” stretches beyond constitutional qualifications into “we’ve decided their state harbors terrorists,” then state-certified election results become suggestions.

What “Law by Label” Actually Looks LikeWhat “Law by Label” Actually Looks Like

We have a recent, concrete example: Special Counsel Jack Smith’s deposition on the 2020 election case describes co-conspirators explicitly wanting to discard lawful ballots. “We want to get rid of these votes. We want to subtract them.”

Not “these votes were cast illegally.” Just: we don’t like the outcome, so we want them gone.

That’s the posture to watch for: once you normalize bypassing formal thresholds, the only remaining limiter is political will.

The Question That Needs AnsweringThe Question That Needs Answering

If the goal is “protect the country,” what’s the limiting principle that keeps “credential review for national security” from collapsing into “we reject members from states we’ve labeled disloyal”?

What’s the standard of proof? Who decides whether a state has engaged in “pro-terrorist conduct”? What process does the accused member get? What prevents the majority from labeling any minority-party state a threat?

“We’ll know it when we see it” is not a limiting principle. It’s just power looking for a justification.

I’m not claiming elections won’t be free and fair. I’m claiming we’re watching the groundwork get laid for treating constitutional procedures as optional when the right labels are invoked. Once threshold words stop meaning anything specific, they can justify anything at all.

That’s not paranoia. That’s just watching the same play run twice and recognizing the formation.