Posted on 08/02/2023 6:14:12 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
If you did want to place a plant and wanted a "trustworthy guy"
who painted a better picture than him?
Just a thought.
Yup.
That’s too god for the bastard.
Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper if the judiciary doesn’t uphold it!! The constitution no longer means a damn thing in this nation, we have gone way past the point of no return!!
Jeremiah Denton was the POW in the Vietcong prison who wrote When Hell was in Session ...
Even if all you write is correct, there is no such thing as coerced behavior in the USA. So Pence could have simply declined to perform the so-called “ceremonial” acceptance. If challenged, he could have resigned.
If impeached, he (and trump) could have presented the state level evidence gathered up until that point in time. The states would have been forced to rebut the charges in the court of congress and the court of public opinion (which seems fair).
Yes, it would have been difficult and a constitutional crisis of sorts, but better than sliding further into darkness as we seem to be doing now.
Thought Congress changed the law. (Whether constitutional or not for them to do so.) We don’t have to prepare for Kamala to do that. They believe they have corrected this by statute.
Still can’t figure out how this relates to John the Baptist though.
There is no provision anywhere in the Constitution that supports either of these statements.
The role of the joint session of Congress, in which the VP is the presiding officer (as President of the Senate), is to COUNT the electoral votes. That's it.
Congress had the power to "object" to the ballots. It was in 3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress. There doesn't seem to be any limits on the grounds for objection, but there does seem to be a limit on the recourse between which electors to accept (outright rejection was not in the code).
All of this was removed from Title 3 in 2022 by Congress.
At the time of the 2020 election, 3 U.S. Code § 15 said this:
...no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.In 2020, Congress MAY reject a slate if they believe the slate was decided illegally. They cannot reject a legal slate if it is the only slate submitted for the state.
3 U.S. Code § 15 also said this:
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.Congress changed this passage to require 1/5th of the Senate and 1/5th of the House to sign any objection. That's 20 Senators and 87 Representatives!
They also limited the grounds for objections to "The electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors according to section 5(a)(1)" and "The vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given."
The recourse for Congress was limited to this:
but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law;So, Congress had the power to reject a competing slate if it concluded that the slate was not authorized by the legal entity of the state, but it couldn't reject a slate when it was the only slate sent from a state.if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
BTW, Congress also took away the ability of states to delay in filing their slate of Electors. They repealed 3 U.S. Code § 2, which said:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
-PJ
You’d be correct.
Post #66
Well said!
Don’t you mean Judas?
You have cited a Federal statute extensively. In my previous post I was referring to the U.S. Constitution. The process you’ve described there in that statute can not hold up to any constitutional scrutiny. As that law is written, it would be perfectly legal for Congress to reject electoral votes from one or more states even if there was never any dispute about the validity of those electoral votes.
> Maria Zack
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UigboEQAmAU&pp=ygURTWFyaWEgemFjayBrYW5zYXM%3D
Thanks. It would be interesting to learn of any updates on the issues that Ms. Zack touched upon in her presentation.
“thirty pieces of silver? ha, chicken feed!”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/07/mike-pence-signs-seven-figure-deal-for-memoirs#:~:text=Pence‘s%20autobiography%2C%20currently%20untitled%2C%20is,%243m%20and%20%244m.
Pence, Mr. 1%
Fly Guy.
Pence has repeatedly maintained he lacked the constitutional authority to send the elections results back to the contested states for review and insisted he saw no evidence of voter fraud swaying the outcome of the 2020 election, a point Smith notes early in the indictment.
The former vice president’s own words prior to the events of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, however, seem to contradict his post-vice-presidency narrative.
See here:
Video footage from a public address less than one week prior to the electoral certification on Jan. 6, 2021 shows Pence expressing concerns about election irregularities in the contest and vows to hear the objections of his supporters during the certification process, seemingly suggesting he held a belief in his authority to do so.
“I know we all got doubts about the election. I share the concerns of millions of Americans about voting irregularities,” he told supporters on Jan. 4. “I promise you this Wednesday. We’ll have our day in Congress. We’ll hear the objections. We’ll hear the evidence.”
Summary: first, Pence said, publicly, yea, I’ll look into the 2020 election and sure there do seem to be problems.
Then, he doesn’t do that at all.
Your animus should be pointed at the US Congress.
And all those State legislatures that did not intervene.
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.