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 ...
See my post #75. Pence didn't have the direct power to "question" the certificates. His power was to call for objections to the certificates.
Did Pence do that?
-PJ
Pence called for objections. None were fulfilled.
12th Amendment: "–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;–"
Seems pretty clear.
Hello All-
Just as a real estate title can have a “cloud” over it, preventing transfer of ownership until removed, many of the ‘Elector Certificates’ DID have an OBVIOUS cloud over them, hence the pertinent thread here today at FR.
Before accepting the Elector Certificates, Mike Pence SHOULD have gone to his US Secret Service detail’s Supervisor in the Chamber and TOLD the agent that under no circumstance does he want the Clerk approaching him with the Elector Certificates. Further Mike Pence SHOULD have informed the Supervisor that he (Mike Pence) was resigning his position as Vice President of the United States, effective IMMEDIATELY. Then Mike Pence SHOULD have resumed his position in the Chamber and resigned forthwith, leaving the building at once then proceeding to Andrews Air Force Base for a flight to a destination unknown.
THIS was the Constitutional step Mike Pence COULD have taken and he would have been well within his right to do so.
What would happen after that is open for debate, but one thing is for certain, Joe Biden would not have been certified as the next President of the United States of America.
And here you are arguing that the "president of the Senate" has fewer rights than the rank and file members.
How about this? I'm gonna object anyways, whether other people say I have a right to do so or not.
I'm going to object loudly. I am going to object longly. I am going to castigate everyone who acquiesces to this fraud crap show going forward.
And in so doing, I would have gained the respect of other, not their disgust. (Except for the Democrats, and about who's opinions I give not the least sh*t.)
If the "President of the Senate" refuses to go along with a fraud, then the constitution allows the fraudsters no other options.
If Pence had guts, he would have refused to cooperate and *FORCED* them to do something about it.
More the crap you're spouting is not 'real factual information."
Trump speaks in hyperbole and shortens the message so it can be explained quickly, without all the disclaimers. That is why he is an effective communicator. Pence had the power to send the dispute over electors back to the states that wanted a little more time. If the dispute was back in the states, the election would have had a CHANCE of being overturned. Thus, Pence had the power to START the process of decertification and an overturn the election. All of this is uncharted territory in our system.
Constitution argues that too.
How about this? I'm gonna object anyways, whether other people say I have a right to do so or not.
Your contempt for the Constitution is well known.
So if the vice-presidency is vacant then the count can't take place?
If the "President of the Senate" refuses to go along with a fraud, then the constitution allows the fraudsters no other options.
Where?
Untrue. In spite of the "Pence was just there to read the vote totals" defense, Pence had both a Constitutional and legal responsibility to insure the accuracy and legality of the votes before entering them into the Congressional record.
First, Pence broke with the Electors Clause of the Constitution by ignoring state legislators who formerly requested a 10 day review of the elector count for legality and accuracy. The Constitution gives the states supremacy over the certification of electors, and if they have questions, the President of the Senate has no authority to ignore them or overrule them.
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."
Pence threw out "3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting Electoral Votes in Congress" when Congress returned after the "insurrection". His authority for this action is unknown....and McConnell agreeing with him is not, IMHO, enough to break the law.
Counting electoral votes is not the same as counting the ‘popular’ vote though. The electors were all ratified and sent by all the states. He could only challenge those. The states would just send other Biden voting ones even if he was able to dismiss any.
The amount of ignorance showing here is shocking. True believers though, I’ll give them that.
Not pushing the leftist narrative at all, I just wanted to see the article discussed and debated here. How do you refute a narrative if you refuse to acknowledge it and discuss it?
Pence's power was to call for objections, and the members of Congress had the power to object to Electoral College votes.
Keep in mind that this was the "backstop" power, the last resort. The state legislatures had the prior power to question ballots going back to 3 U.S. Code § 2 - Failure to make choice on prescribed day and 3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors weeks before the ballots made it to Congress.
In fact, 3 U.S. Code § 2 - Failure to make choice on prescribed day may make delayed acceptance of mail-in ballots unconstitutional.
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.Since Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, if a state has not selected its Electors on THAT day, this section of the US CODE says that the legislature may choose the electors after that, and not wait for a week for more ballots to arrive and be counted.
This section of US Code could have also been used to invalidate the 2:00am ballot dumps that put Biden over the top because those ballots arrived on the next day AFTER the day prescribed by law. The legislature could have cited US Code Title 3 § 2 to discard those ballots and call the election at that point. Of course, that action would have been immediately appealed to a friendly judge, who would then have to rule on the interpretation of the US Code.
-PJ
Correct. Why this is still being discussed is beyond me.
That it is factual information is demonstrable because it stands on it' own merits.
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.