Replies

Pence does not have the power to unilaterally discard certified votes sent by one or more states.

Someone posted the US law on this yesterday and it was crystal clear on what the process is.

ONLY the House AND Senate, if they both agree (which will obviously never, ever happen), after written objection of at least 1 Senator and 1 Congressman, can “overturn” a slate of certified electors for a state and choose an alternate slate of electors.

Repeat: Pence does NOT have the power to discard votes or “choose” alternate electors, UNLESS there are two different sets of electors CERTIFIED by a particular state. And to date, we have precisely zero of those - and will likely still have zero of those on 1/6.

That’s not giving up or being a downer - that’s simply reality.

"Pence does not have the power to unilaterally discard certified votes sent by one or more states.
Someone posted the US law on this yesterday and it was crystal clear on what the process is.
ONLY the House AND Senate, if they both agree (which will obviously never, ever happen), after written objection of at least 1 Senator and 1 Congressman, can “overturn” a slate of certified electors for a state and choose an alternate slate of electors.
Repeat: Pence does NOT have the power to discard votes or “choose” alternate electors, UNLESS there are two different sets of electors CERTIFIED by a particular state. And to date, we have precisely zero of those - and will likely still have zero of those on 1/6.

That’s not giving up or being a downer - that’s simply reality."

I don't know who you saw that posted that, but I can say that I'VE posted that very fact....probably...half dozen times or more.

The question here isn't what elector votes Pence "overturn's"....the question is, WHICH of the conflicting votes does he count?

Does he count neither?
Does he count both? That seems illegal on it's face.
Does he count the original (biden) vote?
Does he count the newest, updated (Trump) vote?

There is this from an admitted lawyer (as opposed to those that never tell)

According to Title 3 sec 5-6 of the electoral college act. The burden of proof then, that there was no fraud, is up to the Biden campaign.

The one loophole that I see in 3 U.S.C. § 6 is that “the executive of each State” is required, to not only certify the electors, but to also include “any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State... as soon as practicable after such determination”. Courts that have refused to adjudicate disputes through opinions of standing, laches, mootness, etc., have never made a final determination of the disputes. If this is not done, then the Safe Harbor provision of 3 U.S.C. § 5 does not apply to the slate certified by the state’s governor. VPOTUS might then refuse to count disputed electoral votes, in which case Congress may not be able to review his decision, or it would require both houses to overturn VPOTUS’s decision. That leads to a potential contingent election for POTUS in the House.
6,059 posted on 12/21/2020, 6:17:03 PM by Dr. Franklin (”A republic, if you can keep it.”)

The supreme US law is the language of the US Constitution, as amended. The "law" you are citing is statutory law. IF the Constitution says otherwise, the Constitution wins. Claims that Pence can do more claim the Constitution as authority. What the statue says is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is does the Constitution say and mean what they say it does. If it does then Pence can do what they claim. Whether it does is debatable, but like 'Trump Wins' not without evidence.

Those arguing that no one person should have such power should be asked if they would say the same were the person named John Roberts, or some random swing Justice. Framers believed in dividing power. The VP was long considered the least powerful elected office; framers might have thought a person aspiring only to that low office a fair choice to resolve such controversy.