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

To: maddog55

The section that you cite was an amendment to the electoral Count Act of 1877, and this revision occurred in DECEMBER of 2022, almost 2 years after the events of January 6, ostensibly to clarify what heretofore had not been clarified, according to many constitutional scholars and attorneys. Apparently this was supposed to make certain that which was not universally agreed to be so.

It is possible that this amendment, if constitutionally challenged at some future date, may not hold up to scrutiny by the SCOTUS. The constitution does not declare that the president of the senate’s role is merely ministerial, as no other duty in the constitution is deemed to be so.


33 posted on 10/29/2023 6:03:47 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: DMZFrank; maddog55
It is possible that this amendment, if constitutionally challenged at some future date, may not hold up to scrutiny by the SCOTUS. The constitution does not declare that the president of the senate’s role is merely ministerial, as no other duty in the constitution is deemed to be so.

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.

113 posted on 10/30/2023 10:51:14 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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