He had no such authority. And his job was to read them into the record...nothing more.
Absolutely disagree. The position of "President of the Senate" has discretion, or it would not have been identified as necessary for the process.
The rules for interpreting Constitutional law require that the clauses of the constitution cannot be interpreted as having no effect.
Saying the President of the Senate is a rubber stamp, renders that clause as having no effect.
Correct.
Trump needs to quit listening to whoever is feeding him this garbage. The Vice President has no such power, role, or authority. Never has. Even if theoretically the Vice President could do such a thing on his/her own motion, a member at the joint session could simply say “I appeal the ruling of the chair” and it would be voted down and that would be the end of that rather quickly.
You need to learn the meaning of ‘certify’”
certify
VERB
attest or confirm in a formal statement.
“the profits for the year had been certified by the auditors” · [more]
synonyms:
verify · guarantee · attest · validate · ratify · warrant · confirm · corroborate · substantiate · endorse · vouch for · testify to · provide evidence of · authenticate · document · bear witness to · bear out · give proof of · prove · demonstrate · back up · support
officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
“she was certified as a personal trainer”
synonyms:
accredit · recognize · license · authorize · approve · warrant · empower · qualify · endorse · sanction · vouch for · put one’s seal of approval on · appoint · give a certificate to · give a diploma to
Notice it does not say “just sign anything they give you”
He was certainly within his rights to listen to the objections, and delay ‘certifying’ it until the objections were addressed. It was done before, so there was even precedent.
I have to ‘certify’ work all the time in my job. If I certify something and it fails it is my head on a platter... so NO I would never ‘certify’ something if several of the participants expressed misgivings about it.
“He had no such authority. And his job was to read them into the record...nothing more.”
So you folks believe the Founder’s intent was for everyone involved in the Electoral Process to robotically approve everything?
Then why have them do this at all?
No, in the face of evidence of fraud there is an obligation to at least delay certification until such time as any substantial questions about specific Electoral ballots are answered.
Then why did he ask if objections were in writing and signed by a senator? If there was no purpose why ask the question?
US Code Title 3 Chapter 1 3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress:
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
Both you and Pence left out that last part about calling for objections as a part of his responsibilities.
-PJ
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.
Correct. Why this is still being discussed is beyond me.
Ceremonial role. He could had passed it to Patrick Leahy, president pro tempore of the Senate.