Posted on 01/31/2022 8:57:29 AM PST by sam_whiskey
Meet Donald Trump, the constitutional scholar.
The twice-impeached former president is claiming that the bipartisan effort to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887 proves that ex-Vice President Mike Pence had the legal right to overturn the results of the 2020 election that Trump lost.
“If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had “absolutely no right” to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate ... how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?” Trump asked.
Without providing any facts or legal precedent, Trump suggested the effort to clarify the 135-year-old statute means Pence would have been within his rights to reject the results of the electoral votes cast by the states on Jan. 6, 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
-PJ
No it doesn't. You just assert this, and you are incorrect.
Your contempt for the Constitution is well known.
I express no contempt for the constitution other than my criticisms of the stupider amendments which have been added to it.
And those criticisms are valid.
In none of those cases was it the legislature itself which requested the hold, just a minority of members acting on their own outside the authority if the legislature. They have no more power to request such a delay as you or I do.
Next, Pence broke with his legal requirement under "3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting Electoral Votes in Congress" which requires: "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."
Incorrect. There were two objections filed; one for the Arizona vote prior to the rioting and Pennsylvania after Congress resumed their meeting. Pence asked for objections to every state, as the law required, but objections to the electoral votes of Georgia, Michigan and Nevada were not sustained because only House members and no senator joined the objection.
No one asked or expected Pence to dismiss anything --- just to honor the Constitution and allow the states to review and recertify their electors, as requested --- the states, not Pence.
Counting the popular vote is how the electoral votes are determined. If the popular vote is screwed up, it's quite possible the state's electoral votes are, too.
Prior to Jan 6, legislators from several states wrote to Pence outlining their concerns that the certified votes may be based on election and voter fraud. They requested 10 days to review the certifications. Under the Electors Clause of the Constitution, Pence had the obligation to honor this request and return the certifications to the states for review and re-certification.
Pence, without authority or reason, ignored them.
Keep in mind, January 6 is an arbitrary deadline set by Congress. The only date included in the Constitution is that the President must be sworn in on the January 20 at noon following the election.
This is one of the legal obligations Pence ignored.
No one was trying to "change" the results of the election.
They were just trying to ensure that the correct election results were the ones that were being validated.
Hence, Pence, who had a right to question the submitted results, or put them aside while disputes regarding them were fully resolved.
I'm pretty sure that depends on how anal-retentive you want to be about interpreting the meaning from the words. I don't think a rational person would read it as the President of the Senate is indispensable, but as some of you are reading it with such absolutely rigidity to your own specific interpretation of it, it should not trouble you much to have this same ridiculously rigid shoe put on your own foot.
Where?
In that same ridiculously rigid interpretation you and your allies have of the document.
If you insist on saying the President of the Senate must rubber stamp the procedure, then I can just as easily say the procedure can't go forward unless the President of the Senate allows it.
A bon chat, bon rat.
It has no merits to stand on other than those of your own imagination.
Objections were tabled when congress returned from the "insurrection".
Bump!
Righting a FRAUDULENT election is NOT overturning an election!!
Your statement reminds me of what Ronald Reagan said.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant... It's that they know so much which isn't so."
He also had the power to say "I shall not be a party to this farce."
And walk out.
A good question for you as well. The Constitution identifies one President of the Senate, the person with apparent omnipotent powers over the election.
. I don't think a rational person would read it as the President of the Senate is indispensable,
You would it seems. Your reply 87 claims "Specifying "President of the Senate" means that no one else may do that job." Not the President Pro Tempore. Not the Senate Majority Leaders. Nobody.
In that same ridiculously rigid interpretation you and your allies have of the document.
In other words, nowhere.
“on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, members of the Electoral College meet in their respective states and cast their official votes for president and vice president.”
https://www.history.com/news/electors-chosen-electoral-college
So the states had over a month after the ballot dump to choose electors. If they didn’t challenge them before that, it’s over. There’s nothing Pence could do. I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at?
Because they could not resume in session. It was not possible for them to speak as a body because the session had ended, and all the @$$holes who could call a special session refused to do so.
In your own imagination.
The states had until mid December to select them. By then the counts were completely done and it wasn’t going to change. I just don’t see how sending the electors back to the states would change anything. It would be like telling a jury to go back and change their verdict. Pence’s job is similar to a judge in that regard, just as I understand it.
Except none of the state legislatures requested that. A minority of members requested the delay, not the state legislatures themselves. A minority of members did not have the authority to speak for the legislature as a whole.
Makes you wonder if that was not in fact the deliberate intent of the government agent driven fake "insurrection".
Allowing the objections to be heard and processed would have put a serious kink in the appearance of legitimacy.
Having a mob run into the building and interfere with the objection process caused that whole threat to Biden's takeover to disappear.
Absent a court order to do so I'm not surprised.
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.