Posted on 02/06/2022 12:20:39 PM PST by RandFan
Former President Trump's criticism of efforts to change an arcane election law are adding new urgency — and uncertainty — into bipartisan negotiations in the Senate.
Trump isn’t the only potential hurdle looming on the horizon for hopes of a deal on changing the Electoral Count Act, a 135-year-old law that lays out how the Electoral College results are counted. In addition to the bipartisan talks, a group of Democrats unveiled a “discussion draft” of their own proposal and senators are already mulling potential things they would want to add into any deal.
But Trump’s decision to revive his criticism of former Vice President Mike Pence over his refusal to unilaterally throw out election results in states Trump lost, while also flirting with a 2024 run, is putting him at odds with the Senate negotiations.
“The statements that President Trump put out on the Electoral Count Act only underscores the need for us to remove any ambiguity that exists in the act, which is poorly drafted and has not been revised since it was passed in 1887,” said GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who was mocked by Trump as “Wacky Susan Collins.”
The bipartisan group, led by Collins and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), is still in its early stages after setting up five subgroups that would develop pieces of a proposal: Reforming the 1887 Electoral Count Act; protecting election workers; voting practices and rights; the election assistance commission; and presidential transitions.
Trump also claimed in multiple statements that the ongoing discussions about changes to the 1887 law aligned with his belief that Pence “could have sent the votes back to various legislators for reassessment after so much fraud and irregularities were found” — an argument rejected by many GOP senators.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The Uniparty are trying to come up with something awful!
GOP scoundrels are working with their counterparts
Correct.
And it’s a plan to stop Donald.
Make no mistake.
Bush League Republicans exist to assist the Democrats.
Keep re-electing them and we will lose our country.
41 pubs just need to keep their nose out of it and vote NO.
The dems will use it as a backdoor way to pass their federal takover of elections.
Honestly, you are crazy. If you allow the VP and senate to negate state’s electors, it is going to be democrats who actually do it. It can never be allowed, for either side, for the federal govt to disenfranchise a states’ electors.
Isn't this the same Federal Election Reform Act we just barely stopped a couple weeks ago?
Mon Dieu!
The thing you seem to be missing is nobody claimed the VP could negate an election. But there is no requirement this side of the seventh step of hades that says a VEEP or anyone else has to vote to accept an election result that is questionable. And in the case of the 2020 election there was/is ample evidence that at least five states did not comply with their own election law. A simple example is AZ failing to print the ballots on legal paper-—known at the time. All we and Trump ask Pencer to do was send the certifications back for a two week delay/review. Getting it right is totally constitutional.
Let’s watch this week to see what Wisconsin does with their crooked election. Recalling electors is in the cards and is all Trump ever asked for——totally flipping constitutional and something Pence had the means to do.
There is no place for the VP to decide whether a states election's are valid. It is up to the state to figure it out, and the federal govern can piss off. If the state legislature wants to overturn the vote, fine. Not the feds.
There is no place for the VP to decide whether a states election’s are valid. It is up to the state to figure it out, and the federal govern can piss off. If the state legislature wants to overturn the vote, fine. Not the feds.
Really, so suppose the Feds ran a sting operation in, say, MS. Suppose further, they find that all votes by black folks have been switched to the opposing party. Finally, suppose, they have irrefutable evidence of the fraud.
Suppose they pass this info on to the Executive Branch. Your premise at this point falls apart as the straw man it is.
I've got a better idea. How about the South secedes again, and leaves the craphole commie states (you live in one, don't you?) to their own devices?
Exactly right. The argument that Pence could have/should have overturned an election is a straw-man argument.
What he should have done is play his Constitutional role in the process of determining what the outcome of the election was.
Of course the Democrats and the Uni-party Republicans argue from their assumption that Biden won. This we now know was not true.
Suppose they did? What happens next in your fantasy? VP rides down on a white horse and does a manual recount?
States choose their own electors, period. If there is fraud, it has to be settled at the state level. If you want different rules you just invite corrupt California and New York to disenfranchise red states. I live in Texas, BTW, and would be OK with secession. What I’m worried about is dumb backwoods talk radio wannabe intellectuals who can’t think two steps ahead. The classic dumb move is to halfheartedly try to steal an election, fail, and totally setup the other side to actually execute it.
Only if you promise to take Virginia with you
Just kidding - the South, along with certain sections of the Midwest and the Rocky Mountains, is one of the few remaining bastions of constitutional sanity left in the United States
actually if The South, with its low tax structures (and no state taxes in Texas and Florida) were actually allowed to secede, we would most likely witness the greatest flight of capital, investment, and migrants to a new nation since the decades after the greatest nation in world history was born. (that’s the United States, BTW, for the America haters)
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.