Posted on 12/23/2022 5:23:29 PM PST by SoConPubbie
45th President Donald Trump says the proposed “Electoral Count Reform Act” proves that he and other constitutional lawyers were correct in their legal opinion regarding the Vice President’s role in certifying presidential elections.
According to constitutional attorneys, whose analysis of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 was pointed to by the former president in the aftermath of the controversial 2020 Presidential Election, the Vice President has the authority to reject a state’s slate of electoral votes in the event that voter fraud, or other election-related discrepancies delegitimize the election results.
In such an event, according to the legal opinion, the Vice President is obligated on December 23 to instruct these states to “fix” their election problems and take specific measures to ensure the validity of the results before sending their slate of electoral votes to Congress to be certified on January 6.
WATCH: Mike Pence sends letter to Congress ahead of joint session.
“It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.” pic.twitter.com/VcBszZwAvC
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 6, 2021
If no action is taken on December 23 to ensure election integrity, constitutional attorneys have stated, the Vice President would then be required to disregard electors from affected states during the January 6 joint session of Congress — potentially triggering a contingent election should neither candidate receive the required 270 electoral votes.
Critics of the theory have claimed that the constitutional interpretation would seemingly give the Vice President unilateral authority to determine the outcome of a presidential election — a power that the official does not actually possess.
Amid the former President’s claims that the November 2020 election was rife with widespread voter fraud, corruption, and other election discrepancies that affected the outcome of the race in several swing states, pressure was put on former Vice President Mike Pence to send a demand letter to Secretaries of the contested states on December 23 requiring that they address purported evidence of election fraud.
Pence ultimately never acted on December 23, and subsequently rejected any notion that he had the power to reject fraudulent slates of electors on January 6. Members of both Houses concurred with the Vice President, and officially certified Brain-Dead Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election — much to the dismay of President Trump and his supporters.
“TRUMP IS WRONG”: Former VP Mike Pence forcefully rejected notions that he should have overturned presidential election results on January 6, 2021.
“I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone.” pic.twitter.com/LmjCYZIsA3
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 4, 2022
Despite permanent Washington’s fervent claims that the Vice President has no such authority to ensure the integrity of a presidential election or reject fraudulent slates of electoral votes, a bipartisan group of senators in July proposed legislation to reform 1887 law to “clarify” it’s “ambiguous” language regarding the Vice President’s role.
According to President Trump, Washington’s move to change the law is proof that he and other constitutional experts were correct in their analysis.
“I don’t care whether they change The Electoral Count Act or not, probably better to leave it the way it is so that it can be adjusted in case of Fraud, but what I don’t like are the lies and ‘disinformation,’ put out by the Democrats and RINOS,” the former president wrote in a series of Truth Social posts on Tuesday.
Trump White House Archived / Flickr
“They said the Vice President has ‘absolutely no choice,’ it was carved in ‘steel,’ but if he has no choice, why are they changing the law saying he has no choice?” he added.
“Simply put, it is because the Vice President did have a choice, and looking back at it now, the 2020 Voting Fraud was far greater than anyone thought possible, with even our Government, through the disgraced FBI, changing the results of the Election by millions and millions of votes,” President Trump said.
Upon learning that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently announced his support for the Electoral Count Reform Act, President Trump stated, “In other words, John Eastman and others were correct in stating that the Vice President of the United States had the right to do what should have been done.”
President Trump added that if his critics were truly correct in claiming that the Vice President had no such authority, they wouldn’t be attempting to change the 1887 law.
“The only reason this change is being promulgated is to reform The Electoral Count Act so that the VP cannot do what they powerfully said he couldn’t do, but if it couldn’t be done, why are they making this law change? The whole thing is one big Scam!” Trump wrote.
The post TRUMP: ‘Electoral Count Reform Act’ Proves Pence Could Have Thrown Out 2020 Election Results appeared first on Valiant News.
Trump said the story so many times at his rallies but never did he realize Pence was the snake in his tent.
The premise of the Trump people’s case is that there is such a thing as a “Presidential election” in which individuals vote, and that the people who are “nominated” and are “running”have some sort of property right to the outcome.
None of this is in the Constitution. The State Legislatures appoint Electors. The Electors appoint the President.
This all happened. No State Legislature whose Electors were disputed took that position.
That’s the end of the story.
They wanted the pro-Trump electorate to suffer heinous brand damage so that the challenges being lodged by various legislators, including Cruz, to the electoral college tallies from various states, would be painted with the same tar brush. Mission accomplished and it gave Pence cover.
Your brilliance is noted.
VOTERS elect the ELECTORS. I just used a pawn to take your bishop. GO!
Because the operative language of the statute has long been considered to be something of a basket-case, poorly drafted and almost unintelligible in places. Read it for yourself:
"3 U.S.C sec. 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. 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. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of."
"(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)"
* * * *
About the only thing that is clear in the above is that the Vice President does not possess any unilateral authority to declare the electoral votes received from a given state to be invalid. It's just not in there.
Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's been done a great disservice by those of his advisors who continue to play to his narcissistic fantasies.
Pence doesn’t have the cajones to stand alone on an important issue. His attitude is let someone else take a chance.
Like a BROKEN RECORD, I KEEP SAYING- Pence - could - have - resigned, before the presentation of the Electors to his position, rather than participate.
What happens next is up for debate.
NOTHING in the Constitution prevents this act.
What is your source? Asking... to see if there are paragraphs.
OVER-
Your grasp of the Constitution is shaky, to say the least. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 provides as follows:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
If a particular state's legislature were to establish that the "manner" by which that state's electors were to be appointed was by a plebiscite conducted among that state's eligible citizens, then that's how it would work, perfectly consistent with the Constitution, in that particular state.
Even in the very first presidential election, in 1788-89, a number of the states (not all, but some) "appointed" their electors by the manner of a popular vote.
OVER-
Just punch "3 USC 15" into Google, and that'll take you to a number of online versions of the U.S. Code. And, more to your quite reasonable inquiry, no, there are no paragraphs in section 15 as enacted.
As I said, long before January 6, 2021, these provisions had been viewed by many as being absolute garbage, an out-of-date travesty of sloppy draftsmanship.
Because he doesn't want them to get away with stealing an election. Even if they get away with it he's going to make sure people know it.
What is your source? Asking (again)... to see if there are paragraphs.
OVER-
[ I am not a grammar cop, nor did I ever play one on tv, and I am NOT going to stay at a Motel Six, tonight, where they will leave the lights on for me, BUT, I respectfully ask for your source as I would like to read the material in its natural form.
Yes, allowing a popular vote is certainly an option for a State Legislature to carry out its job of appointing Electors.
The Legislatures of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia did that in 2020, and not a single one of them disputed the result.
Disregard post #53. Jumping the gun. TY.
Patriots are reminded that the fuss with presidential elections is mostly because the very corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties are not about to surrender state powers, and uniquely associated state revenues, that the feds regularly steal from the states back to the states imo.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The feds steal state revenues by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that corrupt Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Instead of arguing the Electoral Count Reform Act, Trump should probably be throwing the wrongly ignored 12th Amendment (electoral votes process) at the stolen 2020 presidential election imo.
For example, the states surrendered their power to make winner-take-all laws for electoral votes when they ratified that amendment imo.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment:
"12th Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added], ..."
In fact, Justice Joseph Story had emphasized that the overall effect of a state with divided electoral votes is that it reduces number of electoral votes for a single candidate.
"In case of any party divisions in a state, it may neutralize its whole vote, while all the other states give an unbroken electoral vote." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833."
Baloney. Feel free to cut and paste the section of the Constitution that gives the VP power to throw out election results.
For your (all FR readers) listening and dining pleasure:
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. 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.
When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.
But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.
When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.
No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)
Dated June 25th, 1948.
So- when freepers are talking about the Constitution... vs
“something” in 1948.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)
Are we still talking about the Constitution?
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.