Posted on 12/20/2020 11:16:39 AM PST by RideForever
On Jan. 6 does VP Pence have the power to declare a state's election as UNLAWFUL (based on a court case) at the Electoral College (EC)? If so, does he state the violation of election laws, and just trash all their Elector envelopes, or does he get a confirmation vote from the EC whether a violation occurred before trashing them?
If so, start with CA, who left off text required in their election laws to be present on the ballots. ALL their ballots. That shrinks the Electoral College by 55 votes (taken from Biden) and changing 270 to 242 as the threshold to win.
Then there's GA, with (2) UNLAWFUL elections; one for new Senators voting in the EC, and the other for President / VP. Both elections violate the state's election laws; outright vote switching [by foreigners]; and failing to deny voting for Senators to those voters who didn't vote in the original Special Election for Senator held earlier. So how does Pence address the illegally-elected Senators from GA? He may not need to if the EC shuns all of GA's election results and shrinks the EC by another 11 EVs (subtracted from Biden).
Then there's MI, with recounts showing a total reversal of results in Trump's favor so far. So does Pence declare it UNLAWFUL and void their EVs, or does he present the cheat to swing the 11 EVs from Biden to Trump?
It's possible that's all he needs to do to win.
So far it looks like we need to file court cases in the states we wish to declare UNLAWFUL and void the EC votes for those states.
And we need to plan for the states to be processed first by use of Dominion and ESS machines, or not. If we remove them from consideration due to cheating, do their corresponding Congressional representatives lose their rights to consider the votes of other states? We don't want cheaters determining the fate of others, now, do we?
And then there is a whole 'nuther question about the interaction of the new Federal law regarding foreign interference and the networking of states to produce a dishonest election. Would the EC find itself short on votes from Congresspersons being arrested for their part in the international cheat? We can only hope.
Romney is probably leading a pack of Senators, whose staffs are preparing a variety of new Senate Rules, that will appear to relieve VP Pence of particular authority -— IOW, Romney et al will SIEZE POWER on the spot, if Mike Pence discounts an electoral vote without Pence himself being able to pinpoint clear evidence.
Romney will not tolerate any Animal House claims of a greater good.
The Vice-President’s role in the counting is ceremonial, there are no provisions for the office to make judgements regarding the electoral votes presented.
So far it looks like we need to file court cases in the states we wish to declare UNLAWFUL and void the EC votes for those states.
This and/or having state legislators reject the results or throw out ballots in the problem precincts is the only answer.
To date the legislatures are doing nothing. It appears to me they either want Trump gone OR they are afraid of being called racist.
The courts have so far mostly (not all of them) rejected the lawsuits on procedural grounds, but there are hearings scheduled and I think those will be pretty powerful.
Your suggestion is a long shot until one of the fraud states is overturned. Without that happening your scenario will never happen. If one of the states fall to fraud it makes it much easier for others to follow suit to include courts.
Just my .02
We cannot rely on the GOP in congress any more than Trump can. Make no mistake - there is a MAJORITY of republicrats in congress who would like Trump to be gone. He has been bad for their business by being good at the people’s business.
I want this to be corrected, but time is certainly our enemy and every day we get closer to the certainty of a Biden presidency that over half (if not now it will be) of the country views as stolen. To correct this fraud requires great courage - a commodity the GOP as a whole abhors.
This whole thing results from the SCOTUS cowardice for not hearing the TX law suit.
CLEAR evidence that PA. WI and maybe MI violated the constitution and yet they wouldnt hear the case. Especially PA.
That is mostly right, but he certainly can accept an envelope from a state’s legislature rather than another envelope from the governor.
That would be in accordance with the Constitution.
Bkmk
The phrasing was correct. One state has no standing in deciding how elections are conducted by another state.
This is all silly. The legislatures are the only empowered entities to appoint electors. The courts wound up important only because lawyers were giving advice.
The legislatures have to send their own envelope of elector choice. That is the only path to fixing this.
Non-certified ballots don’t even make it into the chambers
Does VP Pence Deny Elector Envelopes From States Who Violated Their Election Laws?
EN Francais?
But Hof Corze!
"As the Civil War was still raging, no electoral votes were counted from any of the eleven southern states that had joined the Confederate States of America.” —1864 United States presidential election
So if the minimum number of electoral votes needed for PDJT to win is officially adjusted, since Pence has undoubtedly seen the evidence of Democratic sponsored foreign interference in coordinated, multi-state voting fraud, he can throw out the electoral votes of offending states imo.
The answer to your questions are in Title 3 of the US CODE pasted below.
Counting electoral votes in congress
§ 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.
The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.
Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.
No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
The Vice-President’s role in the counting is ceremonial,
No IT IS NOT.
Remember, The Constitution was written largely by Freemasons.
Its all intertwined with ceremony and when required by crisis, its no longer a ceremony.
They will not be accepted by the National Archive, or delivered on Jan 6 if they are not signed and certified by the Governors of the respective states
Unfortunately, that is the case, there are no actual “alternate slates” of electors, despite the noble actions of some parking lot deliberations last week. Only the slates actually certified will be delivered to Congress.
The VP is a figurehead in this matter, the power to contest the electors is vested in Congress
> “No IT IS NOT.”
Stamping ones feet so hard they trigger your caps-lock will not give the office of the VP powers to contest the electors. That lies with Congress, such as it is.
Stamping ones feet so hard they trigger your caps-lock will not give the office of the VP powers to contest the electors.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Surely you jest.
It worked for Obama.
not a bad thing
if the courts continue to deny the hearing of evidence
then Mike Pence has opportunity to present all the evidence
in front of the world
The Vice President does open the ballots but he hands them to clerks to read to the Joint Session. He doesn’t have any discretion in the selection since all certificates received from the states must be read.
This is where the House and Senate members can object and require the two bodies retire for a two hour debate. The key legal point that is debated is “whether the state in question has made a “conclusive” determination regarding the proper slate of electors through state-level dispute resolution procedures that qualify for the Electoral Count Act’s “safe harbor” provision at 3 U.S.C. § “
If objectors can make the case that the slate selection process was not “conclusive” (i.e. fraudulent or suspiciously inconsistent with state laws or chain-of-custody safeguards) they can reject the electors for that state. Without at least 270 no Presidential candidate can be determined and a contingent election process based on one vote per state would be required.
in my dreams
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.