Posted on 09/20/2021 6:57:25 AM PDT by Right Wing Vegan
I do sort of like that argument though.
Supreme court doctrine on constitutional interpretation requires that every sentence must be read in such a way that it has a purpose. They have repeatedly held that any interpretation of a clause of the constitution which renders it as having "null effect" is an incorrect interpretation.
What people here are attempting to do is to read that sentence as having "null effect" rather than being significant in it's own right.
Asserting it is a "duty" renders it as having "null effect."
It can only be interpreted correctly by acknowledging that it imparts discretion to the office.
That is not correct. Several states sent alternate slates of electors.
While this would not surprise me, I’d rather take a chance on gas station sushi than believe Bob Woodward as a single source.
The discretion being, do I go with the foulard or the striped tie, do I inhale or exhale, as I open the certificates.
Evidently the originators of this argument are presuming every effect "null" which is not the effect they're looking for.
Name one.
Remembering that a few state senators do not constitute a state.
The powers of the office are discretionary. Again, if they weren't discretionary, the Constitution wouldn't have specified a particular office.
It serves no purpose to designate an office and then claim it doesn't really matter. To do so renders the clause trivialized.
It's my recollection that all the swing states sent alternative electors.
Remembering that a few state senators do not constitute a state.
If they are making up voting law to count fake votes, I see no difficulty in using creative interpretation right back at them.
So far as i'm concerned, the alternative electors were more valid than the fake selected electors.
Jusy give me one you're confident of.
I think your recollection's faulty, and a state actually submitting two competing slates would have been huge news given that it hasn't happened since the Civil War.
I see no difficulty in using creative interpretation right back at them.
In other words you know no states did it but that's not what you want to be true so you deny reality.
This isn't even a close call. There wasn't a serious legislative effort in any state to send alternates.
It's a MAGA fever dream but people want so badly to believe it that they suspend reason.
"and then claim it doesn't really matter"
It does matter. Where have I claimed otherwise? It matters as a procedural function, not as a VP check on elections.
Where does this stuff come from, q anon? I think I saw Mark Levin's name somewhere in other comments. Don't tell me he's spewing this sophistry. This is worse than the mass emails I received about the sting operation.
It is not faulty. I'm just not applying your standard for a state submitting alternate electors. The alternate electors were not approved by the full legislature, but they were nevertheless alternate electors.
In other words you know no states did it but that's not what you want to be true so you deny reality.
Not at all. The reality is that all the swing states in dispute did send alternate electors, but they were not "certified" by those state legislatures.
Those state legislatures were either unable to act, or unwilling to act to fix the election fraud, and those alternates were sent in case the Trump team had success in some of the court challenges.
There wasn't a serious legislative effort in any state to send alternates.
These alternates had substantial backing among members of the legislators, but there was no sessions approving them.
The point here is that when your enemy breaks the rules, you are a fool to not toss the rules into the garbage can. It has nothing to do with "denying reality", and everything to do with f***ing them right back with their own tools.
If they won't abide by the clear understanding of the law, then we must play exactly the same game back at them.
Saying the office is just a machine on which you crank a handle and get a result is removing all agency from that office.
The office has agency. It is not a machine crank.
So I'm not persuaded.
However...
I would have gladly given up a week's salary to see Pence hold up the certification nonetheless
lolz
It seems you think any random system legislator has the same standing as the state provided they agree with you.
They don't.
The reality is that all the swing states in dispute did send alternate electors, but they were not "certified" by those state legislatures.
In other words, the states didn't submit them.
Those state legislatures were either unable to act, or unwilling to act to fix the election fraud,...These alternates had substantial backing among members of the legislators, but there was no sessions approving them.
Yes, that's how it works. Our elected representatives make decisions. In this case none of the state legislatures chose to send alternates.
Sometimes the majority doesn't do what we want.
It has nothing to do with "denying reality", and everything to do with f***ing them right back with their own tools.
That's proven ineffective in this case. Maybe we should win majorities instead of redefining terms and rationalizing our losses.
People believe what they want to believe. They usually make up their minds and then go look for evidence to support what they wish to believe.
I have made what I consider to be a pretty good and clear argument regarding the powers of "President of the Senate" in the context of a constitutional requirement for them to preside over an election.
You have your own reasons for believing this is a strictly ceremonial role with absolutely no discretion, but I of course see this as contradictory with the long recognized understanding that every clause of the constitution must be understood to serve some governing purpose and cannot be dismissed as trivial.
You want to dismiss the role of "President of the Senate" as trivial, that's on you. I disagree.
What I think (and I have been very consistent about this for decades) is that if one side cheats, the other side is under no obligation to play fair with them. In fact, the other side has a duty to hoist them with their own petard.
That's proven ineffective in this case. Maybe we should win majorities instead of redefining terms and rationalizing our losses.
With attitudes like yours, the chances of winning a majority are highly unlikely.
Fighting produces a more likely chance of winning than rolling over and exposing your soft underbelly.
I see your same surrender attitude in the FAANG censorship question. Your ideas are to let them f*** us over, and then be courteous back at them.
My position has long been "À bon chat, bon rat."
The role is hardly trivial. It’s an important duty.
I doubt the founders were concerned with pomp. They were concerned with governance.
And procedure is neither trivial nor pompous. Its delineation is of vital importance regardless of whether or not VP/President of the Senate has discretion to nullify elections. (Which he/she does not).
Like cranking the handle on a jack in the box. In the context you mean, "ceremonial" is just as good. A procedure that is just theater, is in fact "ceremonial."
And procedure is neither trivial nor pompous.
I am reminded of the difference between scientists and courts. to a court "procedure" is everything, even when it produces an absolutely stupid result.
In science, a "procedure" that yields a failure is discarded and replaced with one that actually yields a useful result.
"Procedure" is important to inflated egos who wish to prance around and feel significant, but in regards to what is real and what matters, it is not.
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.