Mike Pence, 'Constitutional Hero'?

If you once served as Vice President of the United States, polling below 5% in your own party's presidential primary can trigger a stream of unbridled bitterness.

Case in point: Mike Pence, who, in a Real Clear Politics poll published through August 2, 2023, polled at 4.8 percent among Republican voters, trailing the previously-unknown Vivek Ramaswamy, who had 5.2 percent.

Like a freezing cold bucket of reality splashed onto Pence’s face, losing to a 37-year-old entrepreneur who, six months ago, nobody ever heard of, has apparently unleashed the floodgates of animosity harbored deep within. Embittered by his demise, Pence now fumes against President Trump, the man to whom he owes the Vice Presidency, seemingly siding with rogue prosecutor Jack Smith.

“I had no right to overturn the election,” Pence told CNN. ”And on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution. But I chose the Constitution. And I always will.” He rambles on. “Anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”

Really, Pence? You “chose the Constitution,” did you? That’s your spin? The President asked you to “overturn” the election? To put himself over the Constitution? He said that?

Actually, the President suggested sending questionable electors back to state legislatures, for proper consideration, in states where highly irregular tactics had seemingly undermined the election.

If, after further consideration, Biden still won, then Biden won.

Despite Pence’s “I was for the Constitution and Trump wasn’t” nonsense, the truth is the Constitution doesn't address the issue, one way or the other. It isn’t like some constitutional clause decrees that “the President shall not ask the Vice President to send electors back to certain states for certification or clarification.”

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A RELATIVELY RECENT HISTORICAL PRECEDENT TO LOOK AT:

The only reference to the Vice-President’s role is in the Electoral College Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3), which provides that the President of the Senate (The VP) shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted."

Some self-anointed “constitutional scholars,” say that the VP has no discretion in the Electoral College count, and that his role is primarily “ceremonial.” In other words, they claim the VP can count, and nothing else. That’s their opinion. But a quick search of the Constitution reveals no reference to the word “ceremonial.”

To the contrary, at least some evidence exists historically that the VP’s role is more than ceremonial. In the 1960 election, after a razor-thin back-and-forth between Nixon and Kennedy in Hawaii, Hawaii sent two competing sets of electors to Washington.

Upon receiving the competing slates, Vice President Nixon made a discretionary decision. Rather than freezing up, as Pence did, and claiming the Constitution didn’t allow him to act, Nixon opened envelopes from competing electors, then presented both sets of Hawaii’s electors to Congress, three for Kennedy and three for himself. He then moved that the Democrat slate be counted.

In other words, Nixon served as judge over the count, even though the Constitution did not specifically address the procedure Nixon followed. By the way, nobody prosecuted the alternate electors from Hawaii, under some concocted bizarre Jack Smith-like legal theory.

Both Nixon and Pence, and other VPs since 1877, operated under the Electoral Commission Act of 1877, passed after the contentious 1876 election between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden.

The 1877 Act did not limit the VP’s role only to something ceremonial, but instead, established a procedure for handling competing electors from each state.

The Act established a special Electoral Commission with fifteen members, including five members from the Senate, five members from the House, and five Supreme Court Justices.

Pence could have arguably sent disputed electors to that Commission. Instead, he acted as if he had no authority to do anything.

It was ONLY AFTER the 2020 Election, that the Democrat controlled Congress amended the 1877 Act to declare that the VP’s role is only “ministerial in nature.” But as President Trump has asked, if the VP’s role were merely “ministerial” or “ceremonial” to begin with, why now pass a law declaring it ministerial?

Actually, the President suggested sending questionable electors back to state legislatures, for proper consideration, in states where highly irregular tactics had seemingly undermined the election.

This would be the most constitutionally sound approach, but in reality it was completely untenable.

1. Were the legislatures even in session?

2. How do you "send questionable electors back" to a state legislature? Who gets the notification from Congress?

3. What authority does Congress have to compel state legislatures to do anything?

Upon receiving the competing slates, Vice President Nixon made a discretionary decision. Rather than freezing up, as Pence did, and claiming the Constitution didn’t allow him to act, Nixon opened envelopes from competing electors, then presented both sets of Hawaii’s electors to Congress, three for Kennedy and three for himself. He then moved that the Democrat slate be counted.

This is what "honorable" looks like.

On the other hand, we have Pence's actions which is a good illustration of what cowardice looks like.

Furthermore, I would argue, it also uncovered Pence as a Deep-State Stooge.

Pence is a backstabbing coward and he needs to spend the rest of his days in despair after realizing he had one significant moment in history, and he did the absolutely stupidest most indecent thing he could have possibly done.

He might have allowed us to possibly avert this nightmare we are currently living through, or at the very least tainted this corrupt regime so badly that it would have hurt it's ability to further it's corrupt, evil agenda, but Pence proved to be lacking in the moral courage necessary to do the right thing.

He was the "weak link." Goodbye!

In two shakes of a dead lamb’s tale, one party or the other
will be on the floor addressing this issue. To the party’s
full advantage, of course. Amendment to our Constitution?
How do we interpret it? Just a stamp of approval or discuss
the possibility of fraud in any form. Seems the State’s SoS
is to be held acountable for any which might be foud (before
any approval) Remembering Catherine Harris/Fla. She caught
flack due to the total count be given BEFORE the deadline
date. And if she he had just stamped the tally?

Pence could have (and should have) done that. It would have made it clear that there were legitimate questions. If even a few of the battle ground states had looked into it, it would have been on record and then the courts couldn’t say we had no standing. I understand that Biden would have been selected president, but court review afterwards would have been more feasible.

BTW, “standing” is a dumb reason not to take a case. I understand that I as a resident voter in Texas have “no standing” in objecting to Fetterman’s fake senate election in Pa., but I certainly have standing when there is fraud in Pa. (and Ga. and Az., etc.) for the national presidential election. Their fraud affects my vote even though I am not a resident there.

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.