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.
14th amendment. Incorporation doctrine.
I am a firm believer in the 11th commandment.
"Thou shalt not get away with it."
If the 14th Amendment were applicable to state election laws, then every state would have to use the same standards for elections, voter eligibility, etc. It doesn’t happen that way. And I don’t think anyone on this website would ever want it to work that way, either.
It’s time you paid much closer attention to your favorite politicians though— if you want your country to survive.
Indeed the democrats have many sleeper republicans but the Rinos are a diversion for them.
If the state legislatures had plenary powers to select the electors, then Pence had no powers to change their selection.
Of course. It's the VP's constitutional responsibility to make sure that the current state legislature's plenary powers to direct the selecting of electors isn't abridged.
But the logic seems sound to me.
Allowing state officials to defraud voters is little different if it is done by bogus voters, bogus ballot harvesting, or Jim Crow and KKK.
Same crime. (Preventing people's votes from counting) Just different methodology.
The VP has the constitutional duty to preside over and to CERTIFY presidential elections as the president of the senate. This is not a ceremonial duty, he has real power and that power also includes the power not to certify. If he refuses to certify because of unresolved issues regarding the integrity of some of the electoral votes, then the election has not taken place.
The VP has the final authority to reject electoral votes for any state. The last VP to do this was in 1962 when Hawaii first sent GOP EVs and then later Dem EVs because the vote was close in Hawaii. Nixon determined that the Dem votes were the valid. However, he could have made the opposite decision and if he had there was NOTHING to be done, he had the final say.
You are so wrong. Why in God’s name don’t you sit down and read what the constitution actually says. The VP certifies the election votes, if he should refuse to do so then the election is not settled.
There have been a number times in our history when the man who has finally taken the office has not been the winner of the election, in fact in a few cases, he has been a compromise candidate who actually received a very small percentage of the popular vote. Contentiousness in DC after the the election is over is nothing new, there have been times in our history when the country has not known who the president would eventually be even after the electors have voted.
Since you feel compelled to set up your Canadian self as an expert on American constitutional law and American history, why don’t you start doing a little reading on the subject. American history is found in books, not in bottles.
Oh for heaven’s sake, what do they teach you children in history class these days?
Many a US president has been a compromise candidate elected by the congress and not by the electors.
FreeReign wrote: “Of course. It’s the VP’s constitutional responsibility to make sure that the current state legislature’s plenary powers to direct the selecting of electors isn’t abridged.”
That’s absurd. Do you know what plenary power means?
Here’s a definition: Complete power over a particular area with no limitations.
Can you explain how the exercise of plenary powers of the legislature could be considered plenary if another had the power to review that exercise for correctness? That cannot be because plenary means without restriction or limitations. Review of the exercise of an act means the reviewer has the power to change that act. That means the act cannot be plenary.
Exactly. He could have done that, but he did not.
Delay on what grounds?
Can you explain how the exercise of plenary powers of the legislature could be considered plenary if another had the power to review that exercise for correctness?
So the state legislatures can send an uncertified slate of electors and the Congress and the VP is just supposed to assume that slate is real?
Add to that, I don't think you know what the word "abridged" means.
And you probably think that having to present a voter ID takes away from your inalienable right to vote.
Your response is absurdly twisted.
Please go and read the U.S. Constitution — specifically Article II and the 12th Amendment … and cite for me the exact provision where the word “certify” appears. If you can’t find it, then stop wasting your time and mine on this thread. It’s more than a little disturbing to see the kind of ignorant, irrational partisanship on FR that I’d expect to see from AOC or Maxine Waters.
And I’m calling this IRRATIONAL and PARTISAN because we both know damn well that you would be taking the exact opposite side in this discussion in 2016 or 2024.
P.S. — I am not Canadian, so I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about on that point.
Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.”
FreeReign wrote: “So the state legislatures can send an uncertified slate of electors and the Congress and the VP is just supposed to assume that slate is real?”
If the submitted slate isn’t certified, then it would be argued that the state did not submit a slate. The question of how to proceed would be governed by Electoral Count Act of 1887.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 and several federal statutes address questions about contested electors that land in Congress. The Congressional Research Service’s current interpretation of the Electoral Count Act explains its understanding of the process when it comes to objections to electoral votes.
Begin quote.
Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours,” the CRS said. “The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”
That interpretation applies to two scenarios in the 2020 election. The first is a situation where only one set of electoral votes is submitted by a state, and objections are raised on grounds that electoral votes were not “regularly given” by an elector, or that electors were not “lawfully certified” according to state laws, according the CRS.
End Quote
You’ll note Pence doesn’t get to vote in this process.
FreeReign wrote: “And you probably think that having to present a voter ID takes away from your inalienable right to vote.”
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.
Crazy swings overnight when the counting had officially been halted.
GOP poll watchers being banned from watching the count.
Deserved a second look at least.
bump
Levin’s argument was that the PA, by violating its constitution, brought the US Constitution into play.
Pence could have, and should have, voided the electoral votes of those states that violated their own constitutions!
IIRC, NO STATES violated their constitutions in 2016!
They went by whatever process theose state legislatures had determined and codified into law. The process you described was perfectly legitimate if it was in accordance with state law - passed by the legislature.
Levin might be right in a hypothetical scenario (I’m not sure about that), but it is not applicable to 2020. The election processes in the states that allegedly “violated their own state constitutions” had already been subject to challenges in state courts. It seems ludicrous for a Federal court to assert any authority over a state court when it comes to STATE constitutional matters.
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.