Posted on 10/29/2023 5:28:15 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Your opinion. Many Constitutional scholars and lawyers have the opposite opinion. But thank you.
That’s a bizarre response. I didn’t give an opinion about anything. What I posted there was a set of indisputable facts.
“What I posted there was a set of indisputable facts.”
Yet Constitutional lawyers, e.g., Levin, dispute YOUR “facts”. But we get it; your agenda is more aligned with deep state than America first.
1. A group of fewer than a dozen legislators (out of more than 250 in the state) signed a letter asking Congress not to accept the electors at face value. -- TRUE
2. Nobody acting in any official capacity on behalf of the state of Pennsylvania ever asked for the state’s "ballots to be returned." -- TRUE
You have no idea what my "agenda" is. In fact, there's no agenda at work here. I just posted facts that are beyond dispute.
Yet Constitutional lawyers, e.g., Levin, dispute YOUR "facts".
Any constitutional lawyer who disputes what I've posted there is a moron. You can't find any who have done so.
I would also advise you to dismiss most of what you hear from these so-called legal experts. They are paid to take a position even if it has no basis in law or fact. That's why most of the ones I've seen cited (Levin being a perfect example) have managed to keep a straight face while taking two completely opposing positions regarding the 2016 (when Trump won) and 2020 (when Trump lost) elections.
Good point.
All true! When the chips are down your true colors show.
Further, as you point out, there is no question amongst the more reasonable of us that there is no Constitutional provision for "do-overs" of our presidential elections.
So those are straw issues that Rinos and the never-Trumpers emphasize, as does Pense himself in order to thwart charges of ineptitude.
The only issue now is whether Pense had the authority to make room for the R's to get their bona fide objections in order (e.g., some elections and certificates of some electors clearly appeared to be based on violations of state laws), while at the same time Pelosi is running around shrieking "Fire, fire'"
Many of us have argued on these pages he did have such authority both impled and express. (Even better than Pelosi's ostensible authority to rip up Trumps's SOU speech in a televised demonstration to the entire nation.)
At best, it appears you are in the Rove branch of the R party. Nonetheless, since you wear the "Republican" badge, perhaps you could use your obvious presentation skills for the benefit of the R party and fashion an argument about what Pense could have done while he held the gavel. Your view could be helpful, if not essential, for the next elections.
330 million Americans. Even the idiots on the other side would have been better served.
Statute law can have no effect on the Constitution. The constitution is supreme, and congress cannot modify or change it by passing legislation.
Point being he has to accept what the states provided him as acceptable.
Not correct. He could say "I shall not be any part of this corrupt farce." And walk out. There isn't a legal thing they can do to him, he would have put the corrupt Biden regime in the correct historical light of being illegitimate and corrupt, he would have been a hero, and the world would be a better place.
Instead he decided to be a cowardly bitch who went along to get along and now he's worse than dirt.
And he will forever remain the stupid bitch who blew his chance at historical significance.
Pence should have simply said:
"I shall *NOT* be part of this corrupt process." Biden did not win a legitimate election, and I will not participate in a corrupt one. "
And then walk out. How are they going to overrule that?
Pence goes down in history as the boy who pointed out the Emperor was naked, Biden goes down in history as the first "president" who was directly accused of winning through fraud, and his administration is tainted with the illegitimacy that it so greatly deserves.
We would all be better off.
The thing to have done was to send them to the house of representatives.
Pence could have refused to go along with it. There is nothing any of them could have done to make him do it. He did it on his own. He’s a coward bitch.
And this is exactly correct. No act of congress can override constitutional law. You can't put conditions on the constitutional roles through laws passed by congress.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work for anyone to even voice the opinion that statute law can control constitutional law.
Very incorrect. They would not have given the job to the president of the Senate to behave like a rubber stamp. They don't need to appoint anyone to the task if that is all it is.
The task is inherently discretionary. It has real power, and is not just ceremonial. The Constitution doesn't do ceremonial, it only deals with real exercises of power.
Had George Washington been the President of the Senate, and had he been presented with clearly corruptly produced results, he would not have said "Oh dear me! I *MUST* approve this pile of corruption, or people will talk bad about me!"
He would have said "No. Not on my watch."
The men of 1787 were not wilting flowers, they were honorable men who would not abide or participate in corruption. They would have rejected the corruptly produced results and sent the thing to the House for resolution.
This is a bizarre statement to make. The role of the VP as President of the U.S. Senate is "ministerial" at its core. His only purpose is to preside over Senate proceedings, and is only empowered to do anything of substance in the rare case where his vote is needed to break a tie.
If you have any doubts about whether the VP's role as President of the Senate is "ministerial," just consider this: VPs generally consider it such a waste of time that they rarely even bother showing up to do it. Instead, this role is almost always delegated to either the President Pro Tempore of the Senate or the Senate Majority Leader.
It's also worth noting the exact language of the 12th Amendment, which lays out the process for counting the electoral votes in Congress:
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted ...
Note that the 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly state that the "Vice President" shall oversee the counting of the votes, but the "President of the Senate." If the VP is unwilling or unable to fulfill his duties to preside over this process, then his successor would do it.
I previously thought this duty would have been assigned to Nancy Pelosi (as next in line to succeed the VP) if Pence refused to participate, but I was incorrect. The duty would have been assigned to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Weren't you the guy quoting constitutional law to us? If the Constitution says the legislators are the legal authority, and it was the executive branch that did the certifying, then clearly the constitutional *REQUIREMENTS* were not met, and the electoral results MUST be sent to the state legislatures.
For those of you who like this sort of nitpicking technicality when it works for what you want, I advise you to feel how comfortable that same shoe fits on your foot.
George Washington would have been smart enough to know that holding a popular vote to select presidential electors was a dumb idea. In 2020, the only vote that would have mattered to him was the selection of presidential electors that took place on December 14th, not the silly "Election Day" nonsense of November 3rd.
Keep in mind that Washington was elected President at a time when most states did not have a popular vote to select their presidential electors.
I can explain how this played out in my own state:
1. Under the state election laws, the voting is required to be carried out according to provisions A, B and C.
2. However, state law gives the governor or Secretary of State the power to do X, Y and Z when a “state of emergency” is declared.
3. X, Y and Z blatantly contradict A, B and C.
4. So we have two conflicting state statutes -- both of which were duly passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
5. The state courts decided in favor of X, Y and Z.
6. When legal challenges were filed in Federal court, the court gave a two-fold response: (A) "There is no basis for a Federal court to overrule a state court in a matter of state law," and (B) "It’s not the job of the Federal courts to fix the conflicting laws passed by your stupid state government."
... and the electoral results MUST be sent to the state legislatures.
So Vice President Pence sends the electoral results back to the legislature of the State of Crapstain on January 6th.
Option 1: The legislature of the State of Crapstain isn't even in session. Does VP Pence send the U.S. military to apprehend them and force them to go into session in the statehouse?
Option 2: The Crapstain legislature IS in session, but refuses to act on the idiocy they've been sent. What happens next?
OK, so Pence or someone else “sends the results to the State Legislatures”
Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona HAVE ALREADY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE MATTER.
What happens now?
The House was right there, in session.
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.