Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative98

States such as Pennsylvania and others sent letters to Pence asking to have time, (I think it was 10 days) to review their certified results because from the time they were certified and Jan. 6, they had found problems and wanted to review them. They were not sure they should have been certified. Pence/the VP does have the authority to do this. Why would he not? BTW, Jamie Raskin asked fir this to be done I’m 2016.


17 posted on 02/01/2022 7:02:11 PM PST by vivenne (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: vivenne
States such as Pennsylvania and others sent letters to Pence asking to have time, (I think it was 10 days) to review their certified results because from the time they were certified and Jan. 6, they had found problems and wanted to review them.

No “state” did this. Small groups of legislators from several states may have done this, but nobody in a position of authority to act on behalf of a state (governor, attorney general, Secretary of State, the legislature, etc.) ever did such a thing.

22 posted on 02/01/2022 7:07:08 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("Mr. Potato Head ... Mr. Potato Head! Back doors are not secrets.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: vivenne
States such as Pennsylvania and others sent letters to Pence asking to have time, (I think it was 10 days) to review their certified results because from the time they were certified and Jan. 6, they had found problems and wanted to review them. They were not sure they should have been certified.

The states that went about it did it in the wrong way.

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 based on election official changes of election law by edict.

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, which would then get appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

Some legislatures did try to act, but they weakly went to the courts who refused to hear the cases. In my opinion, the state legislatures should have just cited US Law and unilaterally acted, making the Democrats have to go to court and object. Republicans didn't do that; they went to court first and objected after (mostly) Democrats unilaterally acted to change the election laws via executive fiat.

The lesson for 2024 is clear: don't rely on the courts. Republican legislatures should interpret their powers directly and unilaterally act. Don't ask Congress for anything; they have no role to play until 3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress. All sections prior to § 15 are about what the states are to do.

If Democrats don't like it, they can go to the courts and fight to interpret the US Code, making the debate public and national.

When Republicans go to the court first to block Democrats, the courts reject the cases and the media covers up the issues. When Democrats go to court, the courts hear their cases and act swiftly. Republicans need to unilaterally act wherever they have plenary power and then put the Democrats on the defensive when they run to the courts to block.

-PJ

106 posted on 02/02/2022 1:33:19 AM PST by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: vivenne
States such as Pennsylvania and others sent letters to Pence asking to have time, (I think it was 10 days) to review their certified results because from the time they were certified and Jan. 6, they had found problems and wanted to review them.

States did not. Or, more properly, state legislatures did not. Not a single legislature sent a competing slate of electors. Not a single legislature requested a delay. Any requests like that came from a small minority of members who did not have the authority to speak for the legislature as a whole.

Pence/the VP does have the authority to do this.

No he doesn't. Had a state formally asked him to delay then it might have given them pause, but in the end even that may not have been enough for Pence to do anything.

111 posted on 02/02/2022 4:09:54 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson