Posted on 04/23/2022 5:57:01 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Objections against certifying the AZ and PA electoral vote counts.
https://ballotpedia.org/Counting_of_electoral_votes_(January_6-7,_2021)
Members submitted objections for six states. Two objections were formally presented by a Senate and House member:Arizona: The Senate voted against sustaining the objection to Arizona's electoral votes by a vote of 6-93. The House voted against sustaining this objection by a vote of 121-303.
Pennsylvania: The Senate voted against sustaining the objection to Pennsylvania's electoral votes by a vote of 7-92. The House voted against sustaining the objection by a vote of 138-282.
Four states were counted following incomplete objections presented by a U.S. House member without a U.S. senator:
Georgia
Michigan
Nevada
Wisconsin
His role was ceremonial on January 6, but he knew in November what his role would be on January 6, and he could have spoken out in that capacity once the voting was over.
As the presiding officer, he could have been the face of Congress and been out in front of the media talking about what Title 3 said each participant's role was.
He could have been urging the state legislatures to act according to their Title 3 powers. The LAAP-dog media would have been forced to report on his speeches.
-PJ
“...Pence could have and should have rejected the fraudulent votes...
-
Wish in one hand and shell peas in the other
see which one fills up quicker.
Where in the Constitution do you find the Vice President’s power to “reject” (or even to accept) electoral votes?
And how were the votes fraudulent? Are you claiming the electors did not actually cast them?
“...he knew in November what his role would be on January 6,
and he could have spoken out...”
-
Just what exactly did you want VP Pence to do in November?
What authority did he have to do anything at that time?
Here is where Vice President Pence made his mistake.Pence treated the January 6 joint session of Congress as an event, not a process. As an event, he would just show up; as a process, he would assert his position throughout.
Throughout American history, scholars would always talk about how the Constitutional separation of powers was a tug of war between the branches: we sometimes had a strong President and a weak Congress, and sometimes we had a strong Congress and a weak President. It came down to the personality of the people in office and the needs of the country at the time. The branches were always accusing the others as engaging in "power grabs," and would often try to preempt a branch from acting strongly by prematurely leveling this charge.
I think most people would agree that Pence exhibits a weak personality compared to the other senior office holders in government, and would shy away from being seen as a "power grabber."
Setting that aside, let's look at the so-called "ceremonial roles" in the Constitution. The author is correct that we should not expect high office officials to neuter themselves in ceremonial roles. The Framers of the Constitution would not have done that to the people who achieved the highest offices in the nation. If these roles devolved into ceremonial care-taker positions, it's because the people who held them at pivotal times were weak and not assertive people, or they chose to subordinate themselves to another branch of government.
The most ceremonial role in the Constitution is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who presides over the impeachment trial in the Senate. A strong Senate has, over time, cowered the Chief Justice into being a clerk of the court, reducing the meaning of what it is to preside over a court. A strong Chief Justice could easily assert traditional court roles and make the Senate act for or against the Chief Justice (see how Tom Harkin (D-IA) bullied Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the Bill Clinton trial, playing on Rehnquist's reputation for being easygoing and non-confrontational).
As an event, the Chief Justice could just show up and keep time. As a process, the Chief Justice could participate in advance of the trial, laying down his expectations on how the trial would proceed, and telling Senators what to expect from him as the presiding officer. Look at how Chief Justice John Roberts told the Senate that he would not preside over the second trial of Donald Trump.
Vice President Pence should have treated the role of presiding over the counting of the Electoral College ballots as a process, too. Instead of just showing up on January 6 and gaveling in a joint session of Congress, he should have asserted his role all along, reminding Congress of what he will do when January 6 arrives if certain things do not happen between Election Day, the day of the Electoral College vote, and the day of counting the votes in Congress.
As the steward of the entire process, Pence should have spoken out immediately after Election Day, calling out the irregularities and telling the state legislatures that they should be asserting their Title 3 Chapter 1 powers immediately, because the clock was ticking.
By the time of the joint session of Congress on January 6, Pence would have already asserted himself in his role by laying down the expectations of all the participants in the process that have a role to play prior to and on January 6. Pence did not do this.
- He should have directed the state legislatures that Title 3 Chapter 1 § 2 lets them choose electors if Election Day failed to produce a definitive result.
- He should have directed the state legislatures that Title 3 Chapter 1 § 5 establishes a timeline for resolving controversies in the elections, and that the legislatures are expected to act on such controversies when their plenary powers were grabbed by a strong state executive branch.
- He should have directed states that Title 3 Chapter 1 § 15 has processes to resolve conflicting slates of Electors received by Congress, and that Congress will choose the Electors they want if the states do not act first.
Pence just showed up on the January 6 event to perform a ceremonial role of opening envelopes and reading votes, because he is not an assertive person and he chose not to be engaged in the process from beginning to end.
We want our elected Republican representatives to fight hard, but they won't. Even if they have an ace in the hole, they will still fold to the Democrat bluff hand after hand after hand. The few who do fight (e.g., Jim Jordan (OH), Allen West (FL, TX)) are threatened with redistricting by their own side.
And worse, they will tell the Democrats what they plan to do before the cards are even dealt! Just look at McCarthy announcing he will not impeach Biden, and McConnell saying he will make Biden serve as a moderate. There is no fight in either of them.
The Democrats know how to be power-grabbers; Republicans are repelled at the thought. Even President Trump abided by liberal judge-shopped court rulings and let years go by before appeals went his way, all the while listening to the LAAP-dog media calling him the dictator.
No Republican in Congress would want to stick their neck out while watching President Trump being lied about over and over in the media. It's almost like they've been Stockholm Syndromed by their Democrat captives to take positions against their own interests.
The Democrats know this, and strategize to take advantage of this fatal Republican weakness, because they know how to wield power and are unafraid to do it.
-PJ
Nope.
You asked, I answered.
-PJ
A lifetime? Seriously? That whole chapter of the code is only about 5 or 6 pages. It shouldn’t take more than 30 minutes to read it carefully. And there is nothing in there you should need to be a lawyer to understand.
Just like all of the fair minded rulings that stopped challenges to Obama’s eligibility, huh carcraft?
imo directing the President of the Senate to call for objections implicitly gives him authority.
However, as a strict Constitutional literalist I won’t argue the point.
“...You asked, I answered...”
-
No.
You really did not.
You can go ahead and cling to your dreams.
Or you can get real.
It is April 2022.
We are not going back.
It is what it is.
If they cheated, then they got away with it.
All anyone can do now is try to keep it from happening again.
“The President of the Senate cannot make an objection, ...” says where?
DUH, we know this.
So what?
Not corrupt, illegal, stolen?
“The President of the Senate cannot make an objection, ...” says where?
The President of the Senate, acting as the presiding official of a joint session of Congress, had no authority to decide or reject anything on behalf of the two houses of Congress. He was neither a Senator nor a Representative. For any objections made, he had no vote upon them. He had no authority other than that of "Presiding Officer."
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2019/title-3/chapter-1/sec-18/
3 U.S.C. § 18
Title 3 - The President
Chapter 1 - Presidential Elections and Vacancies
Sec. 18 - Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
While the two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw.
In making decisions, the House and the Senate withdraw and act as separate bodies. As Pence was neither a Senator nor a Representative and would not go with them.
DUH, we know this.
So what?
Not corrupt, illegal, stolen?
Knowing something was wrong does not give the Presiding Officer any authority. "[T]he President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw." 3 U.S.C. § 18
I remember that. Are the DS Rats trying to obfuscate that?
Funny how the Sullivan BLM brothers, who led the charge, are never mentioned. This country is toast.
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.