Your position seems to be:
The President of the Senate is not required to be a moron who can't see things with his own eyes.
Posted on 06/27/2022 9:08:21 AM PDT by cuz1961
The Treachery of VP Mike Pence Explained Who fired General Flynn and started the Russia Hoax in the first place?
/\ \/
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fda7418c5-6916-403b-a034-766ac02585c7_537x503.png
“How come the Democrats and … Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the vice-president to change the results of the election?
“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power. He could have overturned the election!”
It’s time for Republican voters to admit that they had no idea who Mike Pence was. Don’t be too upset with yourself. He fooled plenty of people. The man you thought he was — that guy doesn’t really exist. It’s time you paid much closer attention to your favorite politicians though— if you want your country to survive.
You are right abut that, but it DOES show compelling evidence of a RICO crime.
So a sitting, elected member of the executive, based solely on his discretion, gets to reject electors voting for his opponent.
Those framers thought of everything.
Did any of the state legislatures indicate their certificates were invalid?
A minority of state legislators from those six states did.
Did any of those six legislatures or even any legislators from those six states indicate that the certificates were valid, or were the certificates from governors of those is states?
Yes it does. The 12th Amendment clearly states, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President...and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."
Since the state legislature itself has the constitutional power to select the presidential electors, the constitutional administrator of the election, VPOTUS, could refer any dubious "certificates" back to the legislature for their official certification.
Who determines if a certificate is "dubious" or not?
Have you seen 2000 mules?
It shows clear evidence of a massive, multi-state election fraud crime.
HAve you seen it?
You are correct...hence the overturn of Roe v. Wade. It is correct per constitution. If states want rigged national elections they’re going to get them. Time to change affiliations!
It says the 'electors'. The 'electors' is the constitutional actor. How the elector is chosen is a matter for the state legislatures. As it happens, in all 50 states the electors were chosen by the voters.
Certainly not Mike Pence, since he refused to do the job of administering the returns of presidential electors assigned to him in the U.S. Constitution.
Pence did the job he was there to do; supervise the opening and counting of the electoral votes.
The focus of your sentence should read "That appear to be the result of fraud", but instead you make the focus "reject electors voting for his opponent."
Well that is true as well, but you are burying the lede.
The reason is fraud, and that they are votes for his opponent is incidental to the reason for doing it.
Yes, the Vice President should reject electors which are clearly the consequence of a fraudulent election process, and he should do so, even if they are votes for his opponent.
The presiding officer, which would be the "President of the Senate."
See? This is why you get lost. You can't keep topics straight in your head.
Yes he can. But there are other checks and balances.
The unhappy party can go to court.
And the court. looking at the Constitution, could look for and ask for valid certificates from the state legislatures.
Those framers thought of everything
You're right!
Except that’s not spelled out in the constituion specifically concerning elections, either. And who says that the VP would be “absent”?...he could preside over the senate, conduct other business, twiddle his thumbs, and just refuse to do it.
Should there even be a “gentlemen’s agreement”(and various ladies) that the “president pro temp” be allowed to do it( a 51 percent vote in the couse and 2/3rds in the senate to quickly impeach and remove the vp for example, or to temporarily 25th amendmentdize, or some other “ignore the old man vote and lets do it anyway” vote, the refusal of the VP to lend legitimacy to the potential charade of a cheated election has powerful impact! If the president pro temp should refuse to do it because the constitution doesn’t spell out the procedures in case of the VP not doing it, or he also while present just refuses to do it, during an electoral count, then it must go to the house where the election is decided per constitution and delegaation count. The Senate is powerful in this case. Yes I get that the VP might be “sick” and incapacitated” during some future electoral proceeding but we aren’t talking about that scenario, and they’d have to work out the proceedings for that.
The republicans could have won it by having greater numbers of state delegation groups in 2020 even though the Dems had more congress members.(California has put the Dems over and in charge for the last two cycles)
In that regard there was an obvious reason for the Jan6 disruption. The answer to your question is, the Senate and the House after debate and a vote in their separate chambers on formal objections presented to (Pence) on whether to accept the certificates.
We should all agree that Emerald confused the issue with his statement that "Pence could overturn the election" (and that arguments on these pages to that effect are perhaps an intentional waste of time).
All Pence could do as acting officer of the Joint Session, is forward requests to the various states that would respond to the concerns of both chambers.
(IMO, it must have been decided there were enough Rino's in play to make the exercise a waste of time.)
Your position is “that appear to the President of the Senate, in his sole discretion, to be the result of fraud.”
Not one state alleged fraud nor submitted alternate electors.
In this case they already had them. And no state submitted alternates.
2. Mark Levin would be singing a whole different tune if this was January 2017 and VP Biden was presiding over the joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes in the 2016 presidential election.
Dr. Franklin wrote: “How many state statutes specifically state that DMV clerks must reject fraudulent drivers’ licenses or vehicle registrations?”
Show me where the Constitution gives the VP the power to determine what is fraudulent.
Your position seems to be:
The President of the Senate is not required to be a moron who can't see things with his own eyes.
FreeReign wrote: “A minority of state legislators from those six states did.”
It takes an act of the legislature, not the opinion of an individual legislator.
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.