Posted on 01/07/2021 1:49:56 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Vice President Mike Pence expressed anger about President Trump to a Republican senator after the commander-in-chief made the veep a target of the angry crowds that stormed the Capitol for simply following the Constitution’s rules regarding the Electoral College vote certification.
Speaking to Tulsa World after the shocking series of events unfolded Wednesday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) revealed that he had spoken to the vice president — and that he was furious.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Mr Pence... you showed your allegiance and it was not to the people. Your allegiance is to the democRATS.
To: #32
“ROMNEY 2.0” for Pence is the perfect! handle to hang on him.
Actually we should hang “Pence 1.0” on Romney.
Equal Opportunity
FOREVER
It doesn’t take a degree to understand the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, nor to understand the ridiculous implications of such an ignorant interpretation.
Even VP Al Gore chose to uphold the Constitution by reading in the elector slates instead of rejecting Florida’s electors.
Do you actually read the Constitution as saying that one man, often likely one of the candidates up for office (VP Mike Pence or VP Al Gore for example), can choose to accept or reject any State’s elector slate?
I guess when VP Kamala Harris runs in 2024, you are going to back her, as President of the Senate, rejecting the elector slates from States her opponent won.
Really?
No. This is a very dishonest assessment. We are attacking Pence because he had the power to save the nation from the hell we are about to see, and he chose to do the will of the establishment and the cucks.
He stabbed us in the back. He set the nation on a path of destruction. It has nothing to do with his "purity", it's all about him willfully unlocking the horror.
Partly right. The states appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." In no state does the legislature currently appoint electors. They have delegated the selection to the voters and the certification to, in the most case, state authorities. If legislatures want electors appointed in some other manner then they have to change it. And that would take a majority.
No rush. She's got till noon on the 20th.
And now, because of 2 months of morons like Powell, Giuliani and Lin Wood, and the "Capitol insurrection" they do NOT fear him anymore. At all.
Selling the country out to China doesn’t make him furious. Massive in your face vote fraud doesn’t make him furious. Numerous coup attempts using lawfare doesn’t make him furious. The FBI framing General Kelly doesn’t make him furious. The FBI storming Roger Stone’s house doesn’t make him furious.
And what exactly has Mike Pence done, besides being an uninspiring buffoon on the China Virus task force?
He’s a dweeb...Jen with white hair. Spit this lukewarm bucket of jello out.
It's my understanding that their state constitution requires the governor to call them into session, and if he refuses to do so, they have no legal power as a legislature.
So now i'm thinking you didn't do your homework before you made this statement above, or else you would have known this.
So what do you expect the legislature to do when their constitution requires an opposed governor to initiate the process?
You choked, Pence. Just like you did when you were trying to lay out a way to help Jorge Bush get one of his many amnesties passed when you were in the House.
Oh, Lord, why couldn’t we have someone with Louie Gohmert’s backbone as VP?
Unforgivable, and he will go down in history as a piece of sh*t.
Those delegated constitutional powers were delegated in previous state legislative sessions.
It's unconstitutional to bind constitutional power from one legislative session to another.
The default position from session to session is that there is no binding statute that limits constitutional power.
In accordance with the laws of that state. These state authorities did not act within the bounds of the law. Only the legislature has the power to change the election rules, and they did not change the rules to allow all those massive mail in ballots. State officials, who had no power to do so, did that.
The election was illegal on the face of it. Of course the courts do what they always do, and simply ignore violations of the law that yield results they like. They also pull that "standing" dodge when they don't want to get involved.
I can understand why Pence feels the way he does. It was a baseless attempt to force Pence to do something that he can’t do and then to slam him for it was ridiculous. I thought Pence did a great job supporting the president over the four years including the last debate that he won. He stuck with the president through some pretty tough issues.
It will be interesting to see what he does over the next two weeks as no doubt he is being hounded by many people right now over his decision.
Go watch the speech. The very end.
👍
The Secretary of the Commonwealth, on receiving and computing the returns of the election of presidential electors, shall lay them before the Governor, who shall enumerate and ascertain the number of votes given for each person so voted for, and shall cause a certificate of election to be delivered to each person so chosen. -- 25 Pa. Stat. § 3166
I believe this law dates back to 1937.
The Pennsylvania statute governing elections is 268 freaking pages long. The law clearly defines the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor as the authorities on determining the electors in a presidential election.
Without even doing the research I can guarantee you that all of the states you mention have some similar provision in their statutes governing presidential elections.
Arizona Constitution, Part 2, Section 2: "Upon the presentation to the governor of a petition bearing the signatures of not less than two-thirds of the members of each house, requesting a special session of the legislature and designating the date of convening, the governor shall promptly call a special session to assemble on the date specified."
Georgia Constitution, Article V, Paragraph VII, Section c: "The Governor shall convene the General Assembly in special session for all purposes whenever three-fifths of the members to which each house is entitled certify to the Governor in writing, with a copy to the Secretary of State, that in their opinion an emergency exists in the affairs of the state. The General Assembly may convene itself if, after receiving such certification, the Governor fails to do so within three days, excluding Sundays."
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 2, §4: "The General Assembly shall be a continuing body during the term for which its Representatives are elected. It shall meet at 12 o'clock noon on the first Tuesday of January each year. Special sessions shall be called by the Governor on petition of a majority of the members elected to each House or may be called by the Governor whenever in his opinion the public interest requires."
So in fact in three of the four states the legislatures can call themselves into special session. And none of them did.
So now i'm thinking you didn't do your homework before you made this statement above, or else you would have known this.
Yes. A lot of that going around.
They were still in session when this fiasco began in November 2020.
Decades and decades before, in point of fact.
It's unconstitutional to bind constitutional power from one legislative session to another.
Says who? Regardless, nothing done by an earlier legislative session prevented the current legislature from changing the process that selects electors. But none of them did.
The default position from session to session is that there is no binding statute that limits constitutional power.
Reality says that laws passed by an earlier legislative session remain in effect during later legislative sessions. The legislatures in the states in question passed laws saying that electors are selected by the voters and elections are certified by state officials designated by the legislature. As of November 3rd of last year those laws remained in effect in all the states. It remains in effect today. Nothing unconstitutional in any of that.
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.