Posted on 11/05/2020 1:48:56 PM PST by doug from upland
IMPORTANT PART OF ARTICLE:
Hoping to avoid a repeat, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which gave states the “safe harbor” deadline by which they could resolve their own disputes without Congress getting involved. After that deadline, if state officials submit multiple sets of conflicting electoral votes, the U.S. House and Senate must agree on which set to accept. (If the chambers don’t agree, the votes certified by the state’s governor prevail.)
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Any comments or clarifications. Have state constitutional amendments changed so the the state legislature slate prevails?
Comment?
God will get the final word.
The best and fairest solution is a RE-VOTE in all disputed states.
With the exception of traditional absentee ballots, like the ones from the military, the re-rvote must be traditional IN-PERSON voting of registered voters. No more mail-ins.
If we have done it 45 times before for hundreds of years, we should be able to do it again. The process will take no more than a day or two.
It won’t happen. I would not want it too, anyway.
More recently, substantial curbs on state discretion have been instituted by both the Court and the Congress. In Williams v. Rhodes,97 the Court struck down a complex state system that effectively limited access to the ballot to the electors of the two major parties. In the Court’s view, the system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favored some and disfavored others and burdened both the right of individuals to associate together to advance political beliefs and the right of qualified voters to cast ballots for electors of their choice. For the Court, Justice Black denied that the language of Clause 2 immunized such state practices from judicial scrutiny.98 Then, in Oregon v. Mitchell,99 the Court upheld the power of Congress to reduce the voting age in presidential elections100 and to set a thirty-day durational residency period as a qualification for voting in presidential elections.101 Although the Justices were divided on the reasons, the rationale emerging from this case, considered with Williams v. Rhodes,102 is that the Fourteenth Amendment limits state discretion in prescribing the manner of selecting electors and that Congress in enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment103 may override state practices that violate that Amendment and may substitute standards of its own.
Whether state enactments implementing the authority to appoint electors are subject to the ordinary processes of judicial review within a state, or whether placement of the appointment authority in state legislatures somehow limits the role of state judicial review, became an issue during the controversy over the Florida recount and the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court did not resolve this issue, but in a remand to the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that the role of state courts in applying state constitutions may be constrained by operation of Clause 2.104 Three Justices elaborated on this view in Bush v. Gore,105 but the Court ended the litigation—and the recount—on the basis of an equal protection interpretation, without ruling on the Article II argument.
Sorry I made the reply to the wrong person. I was referred to a vote for Trump by the state legislature rather than God”s sovereignty when I said it won’t happen.
bookmark
Voters in states vote for their candidate.
The state has electoral votes. Those are compiled with
the electoral votes from the rest of the states.
The person with the largest number of Electoral Votes
wins.
That doesn’t happen without everyone that wants to,
expressing their opinion via a vote.
That’s true when Conservatives win. It’s true when Leftists
win. Those who voted for the person who didn’t win, always
feel like they got the short end of the stick.
Who knew?
Adults have to accept the outcome. The children have to
throw their temper tantrums or attempt a coup.
The best circumstance for legislative intervention is to make a determination of what the voters actually wanted by nullifying the cheats. This would be done most equitably by THROWING OUT PRECINCT COUNTS WHERE THE CHEATING IS GOING ON!
I'm pretty sure that this is a remedy which can be employed by a legislature.
You must prefer to lose by Massive Vote Fraud.
Which is criminal. Our Constitution allows State
Legislators to intervene and is LEGAL.
Clutch your pearls tightly.
a “revote” is utterly inconceivable. I think they’d literally flip a coin before a “revote”.
and until they remove the cause if the fiasco, unverifiable votes from anyone, anywhere, anytime, we couldn’t even expect a different outcome
I think the state legislature, which is the closest branch to the People, decides, but I may have misunderstood what I’ve read.
Art ll, Sec 2
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 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.
————-
No mention of participation by a given state’s executive officers.
Congress
They vote according to state delegation
The poster is almost right.
In a Presidential year, the first order of business for the new Congress is to assemble in Special Joint Session, all 535 of them, with the President of the Senate (Mike Pence, in this case) in the chair.
The Chairman opens the votes, which have been transmitted, sealed, to the Secretary of State from the 50 state capitals.
The votes are then counted. If one Senator and one Representative object to a State’s Electors, the chair rules. An objection to the chair’s ruling goes to the floor, with each Senator and each Representative having one vote.
A revote in some states or all states requiring in person election day only voting is totally doable.
2020 is the “year of the impossible”.
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.
Like it. This is clearly what needs to happen.
They vote according to state delegation
So, each state elects a delegation of electors equal in number to the total number of Representatives and Senators it sends to Congress. That's what I got out of it. We're not sending our Congresscritters to elect our President. Right?
equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
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.