Replies

I know exactly what chain of custody means.

The meaning is completely indifferent to the thing in custody.

It just means who possessed the thing in question, where, and when.

The issue of certification is outlined in the Electoral Act.

If it is unconstitutional, why did it take 130 years before someone noticed?

And, why has no Vice President exercised that alleged authority even once in the last 130 years?

It is the responsibility of any person in any chain of custody to determine that the “thing in question” has been handled properly before it reached them. If it has not, it is that person's responsibility to declare that there has been a breech, and the entire process needs to be started over. The final arbiter is always going to be the last person in the chain. This is obvious through common sense and past precedent.

The history, the actions taken, and the intent of the persons who were the framers of the constitution is fascinating. Thomas Jefferson of course was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and also one of the driving forces in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. On February 11, 1801, Jefferson in his role as President of the Senate accepted electoral votes from Georgia which were signed by no one and had only the number of votes for Jefferson and the number of votes for Burr contained in the envelope. This resulted in Jefferson winning the Presidency.

The outrage over this was one of the primary motivations that resulted in the 12th amendment where specific requirements were spelled out clearly for what was required for electoral votes to be valid and could then be accepted by the President of the Senate. It is audacious to now argue that those requirements and the responsibility of the President of the Senate to follow in his role as the final arbiter in the chain of custody of the electoral votes is suddenly now just “ceremonial”. You and others are acting as cheerleaders for the stolen election by claiming that the plain language in the 12th amendment is now meaningless and "ceremonial". It is a slap in the face of the sincere efforts of those patriots who not only drafted the 12th amnement but had it ratified. The responsibilities, the role and requirements of the President of the Senate in the 12th amendment is as clear as day if one looks at the history behind it. Arguing against this is as auacious as President Clinton claiming that “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." How dare you sir!