Posted on 11/06/2023 9:37:02 AM PST by Regulator
.
Third World Country corruption. SMH.
Ouch!
Well, see, that’s my point. You can’t just make crap up, like you just did, and like Eastman did, the latter to the manifest injury of the conservative movement. Here’s the language from the Constitution. You tell me where it says the Legislature has to submit the electoral votes. Rather, perfectly consistent with this language, I believe every state, after the electors have been SELECTED in the manner established by the Legislature, have met, submits a certification to Congress by the state Secretary of State,
The Legislature having passed a statute authorizing and directing the SOS to do so.
Moreover, in presiding over the joint session, the VP is acting in his constitutional role as President of the Senate, not in his role of VPOTUS.
Your post is gibberish, and false. Here’s the language from the Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
* * * * * * *
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
You slipped in before me. See my No. 24. Since Election Day, 2020 there’s been a whole lot of talking out the wrong end, by a whole lot of people, and it’s only hurt us. Here’s my favorite example:
“It’s all going to come out at once, right after Christmas” - Rudy Guiliani, 12/20/20
Let's see what the constitution says.
Article. I.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
Didn't see anything about governors or their employees in there. Only thing mentioned is legislatures.
And of course there is also this:
... and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.
Throw out those corrupt elections in the swing states, and neither has a majority. The election goes to the House, 50 states vote with one vote each, and Trump wins in a landslide.
But Pence did the wrong thing.
Yes, your silly arrogance is nothing compared to my incisive rhetoric.
And with the past hundred years of making up constitutional crap behind us, I'm not terribly interested in people telling me stuff cannot be made up.
Where did the right to abortion and gay marriage come from? What part of the constitution is that in?
Yep.
Couldn’t agree with you more, though I’d wind the clock back farther to the first judicial overreach. Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided. So that makes it ok for you to lie on this forum as to what the actual words in the Constituon are? Got it.
I know. Facts are hard things. More fun just to pop off and call names like a fool
Eastman was so crazy they amended the law in 2022.
Your Dunning Kruger arrogance is laughable.
I have argued about Marbury v Madison with a friend for many years. Why do you think it was wrongly decided?
So that makes it ok for you to lie on this forum as to what the actual words in the Constituon are? Got it.
Having a different opinion from you is not "lying." So far as I understand constitutional law, the intent is to not tolerate corrupt elections. Any course of action that condones corrupt elections is inherently unconstitutional.
As Lincoln said:
I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government – that nation – of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
True. They amended the law because his interpretation, while not proper, had in fact been raised, and to prevent it from being raised in the future. I had a lunatic woman try to break into my house while I was inside. The police responded to 911 and arrested her. Though she did not succeed in getting inside. I now carefully lock the door to keep someone else from trying it in the future. The law was amended for the same reason
You just confirmed what I posted. The legislatures do NOT appoint the electors. They establish the process for selecting them. If the legislature of California gives the authority for appointing the state’s electors to the mayor of Rio Linda, then that’s a perfectly legitimate process under the constitution.
So obviously it was not a fairy tale.
Why do you want to disbar a senior member of the Bar, a Dean of a respected law school, and support this sort of political persecution via lawfare?
For making an argument you disagree with.
A distinction without a difference.
If the legislature of California gives the authority for appointing the state’s electors to the mayor of Rio Linda, then that’s a perfectly legitimate process under the constitution.
Which state legislature gave the governor the power to appoint electors?
It’s an enormous difference. Your average 5th grader would understand it. I’ve served on four corporate boards of directors, so I know exactly how it works.
Which state legislature gave the governor the power to appoint electors?
I wasn't aware of any, but maybe I’m just ignorant. When did that happen?
Me? You talkin to me? I don’t think so, because here’s from my original post #11 where I said exactly the opposite. I do not want him punished. Not because what he said was correct, but because his advocacy of an incorrect legal theory is not actionable because of the First amendment. Here the quote from my post:
“ Eastman is the author of the fairy tail that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 allowed the VP to reject the electoral result. That said, that’s First Amendment protected and I dont think that he should face any consequence at all.”
Calling it a fairy tale gives the wrong impression.
Your comment can be seen as plausible deniability.
Explain your basis for calling it a fairy tale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.