Posted on 01/04/2021 2:05:41 PM PST by Sense
This is my non-lawyer take on your explanation: Let's say every VP, as President of the Senate, always acted as a "king-maker" and "counted" (or refused to count) the EVs as he pleased, potentially enabling his preferred candidate to become President. Even if VPs did try to act like "king-makers," wouldn't congressmen, the "losing" candidate, and many other interested parties have legal recourse to sue the VP, all the way to the SCOTUS, if necessary, and overturn any "king-making" attempts? Also, such VPs would face the public scorn of the American people. Thus it seems your explanation is inadequate.
He didn't try, doesn't mean he couldn't have. Seems fair since they cheated Nixon and he laid down as well.
I don't disagree with your premise just noting that some things exist because of custom. Just like the definition of Natural Born Citizen was common knowledge until it wasn't.
Mom, dad, sister, brother girl, boy, man, woman were all well understood terms, now they aren't, in fact using one of these terms that offends someone is now subject to penalties.
Free speech was once understood by anyone that could speak, now you don't have free speech because someone may take it as hate speech and a Constitutional amendment was not required to change that. Cool huh, all it takes is a friendly judge to overrule a president or a Constitutional Right. If you can't get a higher court to set it right then you either defend it or lose it.
President Trump listened to all the righteous legal types here and didn't defend his rights, or ours, now we are in danger of losing them all. But we obeyed the judge, now we obey every tyrant mayor or governor's dictates, oh well by next month we will have learned to love it.
Pray the Holy Spirit convicts Pence or more state leaders (or whomever you want to pray about) to do the right thing even if they have no clue why they are doing it.
Some times a person will finally be convicted by HS and some times they die still in their selfishness and sins. never say never because God is able :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OH how I needed to read this just now!!! Thank you for taking the time to post it.
This election has been a period of time where God is shaking His Church awake! We need personal revival along with a national revival.
May it be so Lord! May it be so...
At least one court, in Michigan, has heard evidence, and found it legally insufficient. In another court, in Fulton County, GA, the campaign voluntarily withdrew its motion to have the case heard on an expedited basis, and that case remains pending. In every other case I can find where the Trump campaign has alleged fraud, it has voluntarily dropped those claims before it had to present evidence.
So, to answer your question, it’s because Trump’s campaign has chosen not to present evidence to a court..
Just because a few legal opinion writers agree with you doesn't make you correct, besides it only takes one actual Judge to annihilate your opinion. We have the rule of the Lawless, not the rule of law.
I haven’t relied on any “legal opinion writers.” And no, it can’t be “annihilated” by “one actual judge.” We have appellate courts to prevent that.
I see legal eagles here every day screaming what they can't do because it is unconstitutional yet the other side continues what they are doing unfettered by the law. If you think that is a fair fight good luck keeping that Constitution you love to interpret for us morons. Rights belong to those that can defend them and you can't.
No one is screaming but you. The other side is not unfettered by the law. I can defend my rights just fine.
> Except that the VP’s role in PRESIDING as the administrator of the Election... doesn’t forstall Congress objecting... and THAT’s what prevents “every Vice President would literally be a king-maker” ever being close to true. His rulings are not final. They can be disputed. <
I certainly agree with you there! But the author of the article evidently disagrees. He says that a VP’s actions are “unappealable”.
Please show me where it says that in the Constitution... the VP is REQUIRED to not accept frauds as “certificates”... and please cite the specific article or amendment.
Sure. But, start with the awareness that yours is arguing that officers of the Government DO NOT have any obligation to the truth ? That’s wrong. The words in law do MATTER. So, when the law says “vote” or “elector” or “certificate”... it does not mean to include “fraudulent vote” “fraudulent elector” or “fraudulent certificate” as defining anything beyond “fraud”... because FRAUD modifies the noun. You cannot read the law about “votes” to mean it includes “fraudulent votes” AS votes. You cannot read the law about “lawful process” to mean it includes “fraudulent process” as the same thing... without committing a crime.
The Constitution is not requiring Pence to commit a crime... or feign ignorance of others crimes.
And, the Constitution, in granting a unique POWER to Pence, does not absolve him of his other obligations ? He ALSO has to comply with laws against fraud, just like everyone else, but he has another unique requirement as part of the Executive to make sure OTHERS comply with the laws against fraud, too.
Article II, Section 3
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
And, it isn’t just him who is tasked to get the priorities right:
5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
Oath of office of the vice president of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_vice_president_of_the_United_States
And he is correct.
There is no other authority to appeal his rulings TO. The Constitution makes Pence THE authority in conducting this process. If you don’t like the way he conducts it... tough shit.
That doesn’t give him any power in any thing else... outside the UNIQUE power to PRESIDE over this function ? And, mostly, it shouldn’t ever create any conflict. If no one tries to abuse the process... and convert the routine of process into the commission of a crime... there’s no problem.
That doesn’t mean Pence will ignore what the Constitution requires of him ? And if the law does not create any conflict with the Constitution, he obviously won’t violate the law just for the fun of it ?
But, if the protocol defined in law requires or enables the imposition of a substantive error... it is his duty to prevent the error... including by putting the Constitution ahead of the law.... and fundamental obligations ahead of pedantry in reading the law as sacrosanct when manipulation of process is being used to impose error.
Sure you can, dream on.
I think that would depend entirely on what king was made wouldn't it?
I am sure a lot of laws were created because of custom, but we often obey custom without a law as well.
I wondered many times why the VP didn't actually assert his authority as President of the Senate, though it would be a fun exercise to witness. in fact I have often wondered why the President hasn't done the same thing.
House and Senate rules are custom and can be and are changed often at the whim of the Speaker or leader. Nancy's recent speech proclamation being an obvious example. Senate Rules are not laws and they hold power only with the permission of the Senators themselves, the court has stated they have no power over their rules.
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.