According to President Trump, VP Pence has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors

Twitter ^ | January 4, 2021 | @realDonaldTrump

[AU72]

The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.

[DugwayDuke]

Dr. Franklin wrote: “No, decisions by the courts that complaints were premature, parties had no standing to bring them, were estopped by laches, or became moot are not adjudications on the merits. Even if they were, nothing stops the state legislatures from reversing certifications and/or appointing different electors prior to the time they are counted.”

So, you believe we should throw out the Constitution when you can’t even pass the necessary hurdles to get a hearing on the merits?

[FreeReign]

I don’t think the President of the Senate gets discretion unless there are multiple certifications for a state and we don’t have that situation.

In the contested states we either have two certifications or we have none. Why do I say that?

We know we have two certifications that were sent. So in that sense, we have two. But are both valid?

I believe that according to the Constitution, the answer is no.

My reading of article two is that the "manner" of which the slate of electors is chosen by the states is the state legislatures. It's the state legislatures that "direct" the electors.

Neither slate of electors meet that criteria.

We have some legislators making noise but they are not in session.

I believe they are all coming back this week. They will need a delay from the VP to send their slate of electors.

[FreeReign]

"What is being suggested is that VPOTUS refuses to accept the electors, and demands that the state legislatures decide which slate of electors is correct, and if state statutory laws were followed."

That has already been adjudicated in state and federal courts.

The Constitution says that the state legislatures decide the electors. I don't believe that issue has been adjudicated anyway, and certainly not in the Supreme Court.

[HotHunt]

".... According to President Trump, VP Pence has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors...."

According to this legal analysis of this very situation done in October 2020, the Vice President has the power to count the electors but also to reject any fraudulent ones, as well. It agrees with President Trump's claim.

What Happens if No One Wins?

[mquinn]

Count. Not contest, not challenge.

If you seriously believe that the Founding Fathers vested exclusive authority into a single office, one that was pretty much a muddled afterthought until the 1939 reorganization, to challenge the electoral votes of the states, then I question if you actually hold any beliefs that could be considered “conservative”.

[mquinn]

You’re having problems with this, so let’s try this way.

Imagine we are back in 2000, Al Gore is presiding over the electoral vote on 1-6-2001.

Does he have the authority to refuse Florida’s 29 electors?

[DugwayDuke]

FreeReign wrote: “The Constitution says that the state legislatures decide the electors. I don’t believe that issue has been adjudicated anyway, and certainly not in the Supreme Court.”

The Constitution does leave the method to select the electors up to the states. It does not leave the selection to the VP. Has a state legislature objected to the electors?

[Georgia Girl 2]

Anybody expecting Pence to save the day prepare for disappointment.

[Dr. Franklin]

So, you believe we should throw out the Constitution when you can’t even pass the necessary hurdles to get a hearing on the merits?

The Constitution clearly recognizes that VPOTUS receives and counts the electoral votes. Implicitly, he has the authority to delay that event due to unforeseen events, particularly if the constitutional bodies with the power to appoint the presidential electors, the state legislatures, request a delay. While the courts have claimed the power to interpret the Constitution, no where does that appear in that document. Andrew Jackson, most notably, disagreed with that opinion. When the courts, headed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS refuse to hear cases and issue opinions about election fraud, and other illegalities, what moral authority do they have? Those who don't like VPOUTS's actions can try to take him to court. Assuming they are determined to have standing, such attempts will be dismissed as a violation of separation of powers. The courts have no authority to tell the President of the Senate how to do his job.

[Armscor38]

“The Constitution clearly recognizes that VPOTUS receives and counts the electoral votes.”

“Tellers open, present, and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the State vote and then calls for any objections. “

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/roles

[DugwayDuke]

Dr. Franklin wrote: “The Constitution clearly recognizes that VPOTUS receives and counts the electoral votes. Implicitly, he has the authority to delay that event due to unforeseen events, particularly if the constitutional bodies with the power to appoint the presidential electors, the state legislatures, request a delay.”

Name a legislature that has requested such a delay.

[Dr. Franklin]

Name a legislature that has requested such a delay.

Legislators in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and possibly others, are signing letters for release tomorrow:
https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-state-legislators-officially-ask-pence-delay-electoral-vote-count/?utm_source=site&utm_medium=protrumpnews&utm_campaign=can

Stay tuned for further details.

[Jane Long]

👍🏼👍🏼

[Dr. Franklin]

“Tellers open, present, and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the State vote and then calls for any objections. “

That's not from the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore not constitutional law:

Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the [20th day of January] next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[DugwayDuke]

Dr. Franklin wrote: “Legislators in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and possibly others, are signing letters for release tomorrow:... “(in response to - Name a legislature that has requested such a delay.)

The actions of individual legislators are not binding on their legislature. You do recognize the difference between individual legislature posturing and an official act of a state legislature? The only reason those individual legislators have not tried to convene their legislature to take official action is they no that won’t happen.

[Dr. Franklin]

The actions of individual legislators are not binding on their legislature. You do recognize the difference between individual legislature posturing and an official act of a state legislature? The only reason those individual legislators have not tried to convene their legislature to take official action is they no that won’t happen.

Consider that before the Twentieth Amendment, POTUS's term started March 4th. That meant that the state legislatures have a much shorter time to sort out problems. A simple majority in both houses, even if just signatures on paper, should get a delay to make the issue more formal.

[Armscor38]

“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,”

No where in the Constitution does it say the VP, as President of the Senate, has the power to reject any certificates. It clearly says that he must open all of them and the votes be counted.

[Dr. Franklin]

No where in the Constitution does it say the VP, as President of the Senate, has the power to reject any certificates. It clearly says that he must open all of them and the votes be counted.

The constitution makes no reference to certificates from a governor, nor what should be done if two competing slates of electors is received. The constitution, in the Twelfth Amendment, anticipated that state legislatures themselves would appoint the electors, not delegate powers to others.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You’re having problems with this because you are comparing apples to oranges, so let’s try this way.

Back then, Gore lost because the USSC supported Florida following the electoral process established by their state legislator.

That is constitutional.

In 2020, several states changed their electoral processes not through their state legislators but through their Secretaries of State and through their Governors. Their Marxist courts upheld the UNCONSTITUTIONAL changes to the electoral process.

Fast forward to Jan. 6.

Judas Pence had all constitutional authority to send back the electoral votes from those states that had requested as much because the state legislators were reporting that the votes were flawed.

Both cases WOULD HAVE BEEN constitutional.

That’s comparing apples to apples.

Enjoy your snack.

[mquinn]

> “Judas Pence had all constitutional authority to send back the electoral votes”

He does not. Repeatedly lying about this will not magically make it true. The VPs statement earlier today also specifically refuted the claim that his office has this authority.

By all means though, continue to shake a fist at the clouds.