Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mr. Vice President, Point of Order - Alabama Objects
self | January 4 2021 | Sense

Posted on 01/04/2021 1:28:37 PM PST by Sense

Congress cannot change powers expressly stated in the Constitution based on a voice vote...

I note, today, the sudden end of that effort trying to convince us that the Vice President, the sole authority empowered under the Constitution to conduct the election on January 6th, really has no such power. The ruse intends: as his role is purely ceremonial, he has no ability to prevent frauds being practiced in our elections. Having failed in that effort...

Today, instead, I hear the Congress has voted to pass new "rules" for the conduct of the election on January 6th, which rules are BASED in that same error, claiming that the Congress, also, has no power under the Constitution to do anything but RUBBER STAMP frauds, and the products of frauds, as they are handed to them.

Congress does not have that power, in a voice vote, to deny they have those powers... and that responsibility... that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY imposes on them.

Their refusal to accept responsibility... has meaning.

Congress has abandoned its duty.

Beyond abandoning its duty, Congress has fostered a fraud in process that is intended to subvert the Constitution.

It is a fiction for any responsible actor under the Constitution... to deny they have the power to oppose fraud... or the responsibility to oppose it.

So, on January 6th... when we reach Alabama...

There should be an objection from Alabama... not to the counting of the electors from Alabama, when called for, but PRIOR to Alabama being called... to object to a process, that is, by definition, being conducted outside the requirements of the law and the Constitution.

The process must be made legitimate, before it may be allowed to proceed...

Products of fraud are fraud.

Frauds are not admissible as legitimate, and cannot legitimately be protected from the proper operation of the law.

That is true as a matter of law.

Process intending the opposite... is not proper.

Process designed and INTENDED to RUBBER STAMP FRAUD... while disclaiming power to do anything else... wholly illegitimate.

Public officials claiming they have no power to address frauds being practiced... while claiming instead to be bound by the Constitution to ACCEPT fraud... are traitors to the Constitution.

Perhaps the Senate parliamentarian will have an answer to Alabama's objection... and the question about that process being followed... and whether or not it should admit, and submit, to the requirements of the law and the Constitution before proceeding ?

A refusal to acknowledge the known products of fraud... as fraud... is a practice of and participation in fraud.

Denying that power exists... something else entirely.

Participation in process that is based in that set of errors, that is purposed to validate that error ?

Incorporating, into law, a requirement for process, that denies power exists under the Constitution requiring those charged must act, to uphold the law... and as that power DOES exist, when the law proceeds to also impose a requirement for the knowing acceptance of the products of fraud, by wrongly declaring there is no power, and thus there is nothing they can do about that ?

Declaring that is what the Constitution intends... cannot be correct. It conflicts with every element in the history of law... and upends those fundamental rights whose existence is SELF EVIDENT...

The rule of law... does not exist to validate fraud.

I expect Alabama to object to proceeding under rules that legitimize TREASON under the guise of routine process.

I demand PUBLIC accountability. The rules must be voted on, again... with full transparency... CALL THE ROLL.

I expect any intent on proceeding to commit that treason, to end the 6th of January with their heads on a pike.

Those who wish to avoid that fate... might be wise to insist that the responsible parties are named.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: constitution; fraud; nutballstuff; treason; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Sense

Finally. Someone remembers that the Constitution forbids ratifying fraudulent elections. And/or calling such ratification of fraudulent elections abiding by the rule of law. The SOBs.


21 posted on 01/04/2021 1:45:21 PM PST by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sense

then the first thing pence needs to do is to command the sergeant at arms force to station themselves behind his SS detail relative to the podium. next, deploy a SS detail to take over the mic PA and video.

game on.


22 posted on 01/04/2021 1:47:25 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sense

Early on, some started saying, “Fraud vitiates everything. EVERYTHING.”
But I guess not many in DC care.


23 posted on 01/04/2021 1:48:00 PM PST by GnuThere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sense

It’s cute that some folks think that the US Constitution is still in effect. :-/


24 posted on 01/04/2021 1:50:11 PM PST by Antoninus (The press has lost the ability to persuade. They retain the ability to foment a panic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

I’m sure Pence’s security derail would have a response to anyone putting a hand on the VP.


25 posted on 01/04/2021 1:57:37 PM PST by jmclemore (Hey! Mr. President, Lock them the FuQUp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Yes


26 posted on 01/04/2021 2:04:09 PM PST by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt - Dad's wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sense

“Congress cannot change powers expressly stated in the Constitution based on a voice vote... “

Yet, actions taken every four years since 1878, in accord with a law passed in 1878, have to be challenged by the law being challenged in court, up to SCOTUS and cannot simply be declared unconstitutional unilaterally by a single Vice President. No can a Vice President be sued to deny a law passed by Congress on the claim that the law is unconstitutional. The party to be sued is Congress.

I am only commenting here on the the suit that was filed against Pence.

As to elected representatives arguing in dispute of accepting certain electoral college electors, they have every right to challenge the validity of electors, regardless of whether they have the votes to make those challenges succeed.


27 posted on 01/04/2021 2:04:42 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

There is a precedence.

IIRC, in 1872 Grant-Greeley election Congress through out the votes of Louisiana and Arkansas for fraud. (They were 2 southern states with votes leaning for Grant)


28 posted on 01/04/2021 2:14:24 PM PST by lizma2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

The specific law that applies is 3 USC 15

Counting electoral votes in Congress
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section15&num=0&edition=prelim

It’s a part of 3 USC... with lots of other relevant stuff to consider, its probably easier to sort and page through it all using this link, which has the table of contents:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title3/chapter1&edition=prelim

Cliff Notes version from the CRS Congressional Research Svc:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12

3USC15 is a codification of the Electoral Count Act of 1877 which bit of history Wikipedia has article an about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act


29 posted on 01/04/2021 2:16:54 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sense

Thank you!


30 posted on 01/04/2021 2:18:56 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

pence needs to bring a portapotty and some mre’s in case the need arises for a long session. i suspect that if pence leaves the podium for any reason, they will bar pence from returning (whether or not he collaborates).


31 posted on 01/04/2021 2:24:37 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sense

were this reversed, were this Democrats combatting fraud, the Reps and all of Congress would be bending over backwards to search and acknowledge every wonky vote. Or risk being labeled racist bad people. Yet with Republicans, Congress acts like we’re all white folk who are supposed to sit down and shut up, and so they can abuse us as they have done for 15 years now.


32 posted on 01/04/2021 2:28:57 PM PST by blueplum ("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you... " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

I thought the “rules” were spelled out in the CONSTITUTION!

What a mess!


33 posted on 01/04/2021 2:39:49 PM PST by RebelTXRose (Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us! PRAY THE ROSARY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

“a law passed in 1878, have to be challenged by the law being challenged in court, up to SCOTUS and cannot simply be declared unconstitutional unilaterally by a single Vice President”

That’s a gross misreading of the situation. First, the SCOTUS is not the only one who reads the Constitution and decides what it says. The Executive, also, is duty bound to not follow the law when the law as written violates the Constitution. And that happens often enough that it is the source of many conflicts... which you might see resolved in the courts.

So, yours is wrong: errors in law CAN simply be declared unconstitutional unilaterally by a single Vice President... or ANYONE ELSE who doesn’t like that law being applied to them, and thus opts to ignore it. And, WHEN that happens, THEN there is a controversy joined... and suits may be filed. If you do that, and just ignore some law, you’ll probably be arrested... but, in time, you might also be proven right ? And, that happens all the time, too.

IF, instead of Congress violating the Constitution, it is Pence that violates the law, or the Constitution, then it might well be the Congress that sues him... as per normal.

But, where the power is plenary... the court is NOT going to step in and validate usurpations of expressly stated powers.

What does that mean in context ? For one, it means that when Pence is acting as presiding officer, and rules... however he does... there’s really not a damned thing anyone can do about it. And THAT’s why BOTH SIDES have engaged that argument about Pence’s powers... not because they don’t exist... but because they do.

On the rest... we agree. Of course electors can be objected to, and for lots of reasons, as they have been. Moronic Congressmen declaring that objections are not possible ? Then, why did Congress write a law saying how to do something you can’t do ? The effort serves no purpose other than that found in those fostering disinformation for purpose. Or, maybe he just is that ignorant and stupid ?
These guys didn’t get “voted” in because smart.


34 posted on 01/04/2021 2:48:51 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sense

The Constitution doesn’t give the VP the power to reject any electoral votes certified by a state. Only Congress can do that.


35 posted on 01/04/2021 2:50:22 PM PST by PATed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

once pence is presiding, how exactly would the gavel be taken from him should he choose to interpret the constitution a certain way, untested by the USSC?

The USSC has all but washed its hands of this election— however, to minimize court interference, pence should delay until as late as possible, position his SS detail between him and everyone else, plus a detail at the media booth, and stay at the podium until the end.


36 posted on 01/04/2021 2:55:26 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PATed

So you’re another one that wants US to believe that we have no Constitutional remedy for these fraudulent EC votes. We must accept the communist overthrow of our Republic. The VP is duty bound by our Constitution to perpetrate this fraud. That is a direct violation of his Oath of Office.


37 posted on 01/04/2021 3:16:21 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (If your home doesn't reek of Hoppe's, you ain't paying attention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

The Japs, instead of Pearl Harbor should have just rigged our elections.


38 posted on 01/04/2021 3:18:36 PM PST by Professional ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PATed

“The Constitution doesn’t give the VP the power to reject any electoral votes certified by a state. Only Congress can do that.”

The Constitution doesn’t empower Pence, or the Congress, to practice frauds on the people.

Do you remember that legal contest in which the outcome boiled down to “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is” ?

Well, turns out, HERE, it also depends on what the meaning of the word “Vote” is... and it depends on what the meaning of the word “certified” is.

And, as it happens, the law is not silent on those things, including that if a named thing, like a “vote” or a “certification”... or an “election” is proven to be... OR IS KNOWN TO BE... fraudulent... then, a fraudulent vote, is not a vote, a fraudulent certification is not a certification, and a fraudulent election is not an election.

The word FRAUD... has meaning. Those pretending it does not... are PARTICIPATING in fraud.

In current circumstance... the FRAUD practiced... subverts the rule of law, AND THE CONSTITUTION...

They have ABANDONED their duty... and VIOLATED their oaths.

Anyone who abandons their duty, and violates their oath... while intent on subverting the Constitution... should be killed.

I’ve sworn to kill them if they do that...

So, I’d prefer they not do that...

My LOGIC seems it is not wrong... it does not appear I’m wrong on the law... so hopefully they’ll prove the need irrelevant by taking PROPER action... instead of that they have proposed.


39 posted on 01/04/2021 3:26:33 PM PST by Sense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Yet, actions taken every four years since 1878, in accord with a law passed in 1878, have to be challenged by the law being challenged in court, up to SCOTUS and cannot simply be declared unconstitutional unilaterally by a single Vice President.
@@@@@@@@

Sure it can! VP declares the electors in question to be Fraudulent and throws them out out of hand. He then declares the count of the remaining votes and finds POTUS with the Majority but less than 270 and throws the vote to the House for Pres and Senate for VP. He then adjourns the Congress to their separate chambers with a deadline to report back with their choices.

The Congress would now have to sue itself in the USSC to counter the actions and since this is a “Political “ exercise the USSC cannot take up the issue based upon “STANDING”.

The only other action would be for the Congress to AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION to solve the issue prior to the 20th of January or simply do their duty as spelled out in the Constitution and select the POTUS AND VP.

Popping Corn! MOAR TO COME! WWG1WGA!


40 posted on 01/04/2021 3:57:19 PM PST by Billyv ( Ephesians 6:11 for we battle not against flesh and blood...Pray for our leaders and nation )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson