Posted on 12/02/2020 4:47:12 PM PST by rxsid
Rep. Mo Brooks plans to challenge Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, report
"This election was stolen by the socialists engaging in extraordinary voter fraud and election theft measures," said the Alabama Republican.
Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks plans to challenge the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, when Congress is scheduled to certify Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential race.
Brooks has been telling his plan to fellow House members and might follow without the backing of Senate Republicans, according to Politico.
To trigger such a legislative effort, at least one member from the House and the Senate must challenge the results of the Electoral College vote.
Brooks called the November election "badly flawed," and mail-in voting "unconstitutional."
"In my judgment, if only lawful votes by eligible American citizens were cast, Donald Trump won the Electoral College by a significant margin, and Congress's certification should reflect that," Brooks told Politico. "This election was stolen by the socialists engaging in extraordinary voter fraud and election theft measures."
Brooks also said he does not believe the Supreme Court possesses the authority to overturn the results of this election.
"A lot of time is being wasted in court," he said. "The Supreme Court does not have the lawful authority to determine whether to accept or reject a state's Electoral College submissions. Under the United States Constitution and U.S. law, that is the job and duty of elected officials ... And so it's the United States Congress that is the final judge and jury of whether to accept or reject Electoral College submissions by states, and to elect who the president and vice president of the United States might be."
Brooks, who has been in Congress since 2011, is a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Will the whole nation fall due to the lack of one good man?
Tragic if so.
now that Wood is going after the GA election the knives are coming out
A lot of the Congress critters are going to put up a front between now and January 20th to keep the dollars rolling in from the base...
I agree and also have been saying it for some time. The state legislatures need to step up.
Sadly, even if they do challenge, the House votes to accept or reject the challenge, and the Senate votes to accept or reject the challenge. If the two houses disagree, the challenge fails.
Not in a million years will the House vote to accept any challenge to Biden electors.
While the "objection" piece to this is the "easy" part...any rejection of state legislature and then governor certified elector votes will be exceedingly difficult to over come in the Fed congress...especially the Pelosi controlled house.
Barring something like an oval office prime time presentation that includes those who have testified under oath standing beside Trump, clear and concise diagrams/graphs/photos and proof positive smoking gun videos of the systemic fraud...the Fed congress...even with any objection, will almost certainly defer to the state certified state elector votes.
This is why it's crucial, that the legislatures in WI, MI, PA, GA, AZ and NV must NOT certify and transmit their E.C. votes to the feds.
A decent and detailed source of information on the "entire" E.C. process:
Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Updated November 15, 2016)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12
A few of the details:
Much of what follows in this report is based on the United States Constitution (particularly Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 12), and on a federal law enacted in 1887 (the Electoral Count Act of 1887) and amended in 1948, now codified in Title 3 of the United States Code.[...]
Actions Leading Up to the Joint Session
Appointment of Electors: Election Day The United States Constitution provides that each state “shall appoint” electors for President and Vice President in the manner directed by its state legislature (Article II, Section 1, clause 2), on the day which may be determined by Congress (Article II, Section 1, clause 3). Congress has determined in federal law that the “electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State” on Election Day, that is, the “Tuesday next after the first Monday in November” every fourth year (on November 8, 2016) (3 U.S.C. §1).
Final State Determination of Election Contests and Controversies
Congress has, since 1887, sought to place the responsibility for resolving election contests and challenges to presidential elections in a state upon the state itself. Federal law provides that if a state, under its established statutory procedure, has made a “final determination of any controversy or contest” relative to the presidential election in the state, and if that determination is completed under this procedure at least six days before the electors are to meet to vote, such determination is to be considered “conclusive” as to which electors were appointed on election day (3 U.S.C. §5).3
[...]
Certification by the Governor
The governor of each state is required by federal law “as soon as practicable” after the “final ascertainment” of the appointment of the electors, or “as soon as practicable” after the “final determination of any controversy or contest” concerning such election under its statutory procedure for election contests, to send to the Archivist of the United States by registered mail and under state seal, “a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed,” including the names and numbers of votes for each person for whose appointment as elector any votes were given (3 U.S.C. §6).
[...]
Meetings of Electors to Cast Votes
The electors of each state meet at the place designated by that state, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States (United States Constitution, Amendment 12; 3 U.S.C. §§7,8).
Electors’ Certifications of Votes
After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates of their votes containing two distinct lists, one being the votes for President and the other the votes for Vice President. The law instructs the electors to attach to these lists a certificate furnished to them by the governor; to seal those certificates and to certify on them that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President; and then to send one certificate to the President of the Senate, and two certificates to the secretary of state of their state (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate). On the day after their meeting, the electors are to forward by registered mail two of the certificates to the Archivist of the United States (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate), and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors have assembled (3 U.S.C. §§9,10,11).
Archivist’s Transmittal of Certificates to Congress
At the first meeting of Congress, set for January 3, 2017, the Archivist of the United States is required to transmit to the two houses every certificate received from the governors of the states (3 U.S.C. §6).
Date for Counting Electoral Votes
The date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election (3 U.S.C. §15), unless the date is changed by law. For example, when January 6, 2013, was to fall on a Sunday, the date was changed to January 4, 2013, when the President signed H.J.Res. 122 on December 28, 2012.
Providing for the Joint Session
Venue for Counting Electoral Votes
The electoral votes are counted at a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives, meeting in the House chamber. (The United States Code refers to the event as a joint meeting; it also has been characterized in the Congressional Record as a joint convention.) The joint session convenes at 1:00 p.m. on that day. The President of the Senate is the presiding officer (3 U.S.C. §15). The President pro tempore of the Senate has presided in the absence of the President of the Senate.4
[...]
The Majority Required for Election The 12th Amendment requires the winning candidate to receive “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” That number normally becomes the same as a majority of the number of electoral votes counted by the tellers.
...
[Edit: The following is the historical president of some E.C. votes NOT being transmitted to the Fed Gov]
In 1865, by contrast, only two of the three Nevada electors cast their electoral votes. In the joint session, only two Nevada votes were counted and included in the “whole number of electoral votes.”9 Similar instances of votes “not given” by electors not being included in the “whole number” of electors reported, thus reducing the so-called denominator and the “majority” needed to elect, occurred in 1809, 1813, and 1817.
[...]
Objecting to the Counting of One or More Electoral Votes
Provisions in 3 U.S.C. §15 include a procedure for making and acting on objections to the counting of one or more of the electoral votes from a state or the District of Columbia. When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state (or the District of Columbia) is read, “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection “shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.... ” During the joint session of January 6, 2001, the presiding officer intervened on several occasions to halt attempts to make speeches under the guise of offering an objection.
When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately. The statute states that “[n]o 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.”
...
Disposing of Objections The joint session does not act on any objections that are made. Instead, the joint session is suspended while each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question. Both houses must vote separately to agree to the objection. Otherwise, the objection fails and the vote or votes are counted. (3 U.S.C. §15, provides that “the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes.... ”)
[...]
Procedures for Considering Objections 3 U.S.C. §17 lays out procedures for each house to follow in debating and voting on an objection. These procedures limit debate on the objection to not more than two hours, during which each Member may speak only once, and for not more than five minutes. Then “it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.” Under this provision, the presiding officer in each house held in 1969 that a motion to table the objection was not in order.14
Basis for Objections
The general grounds for an objection to the counting of an electoral vote or votes would appear from the federal statute and from historical sources to be that such vote was not “regularly given” by an elector, and/or that the elector was not “lawfully certified” according to state statutory procedures. The statutory provision first provides in the negative that “no electoral vote ... regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified ... from which but one return has been received shall be rejected” (3 U.S.C. §15), and then reiterates for clarity16 that both houses concurrently may reject a vote when not “so regularly given” by electors “so certified” (3 U.S.C. §15).
...
Not in a million years will the House vote to accept any challenge to Biden electors."
Agreed.
Not saying it would be easy, but that's why our best shot at this rest's with the state legislatures (& possibly governors).
Any sightings of Senator Sack?
How? For the challenge to succeed both the House and the Senate need to vote to approve it. What are the chances of that happening?
If a single House member and a single senator join forces, they can object to entire slates of presidential electors. They must do so in writing and provide an explanation, though there are no guidelines on how detailed it must be.
If they do, the House and Senate must retreat to their chambers and debate the outcome for up to two hours before voting on the matter. Each state’s electors are certified separately, meaning lawmakers bent on challenging the results have multiple chances to force lengthy delays.
All we need is one Senator. And all he’ll breaks lose ...
Not really he’ll - more like heck or darn. And it will be put down quickly.
My understanding is that even if a Rep and a Sen object to the electoral votes, for the objections to be upheld a majority vote in both chambers is required. You obviously won’t get the Dem-controlled House to go along. And the GOPe-controlled Senate is only slightly less likely to approve an objection.
It's a long shot indeed, but I tend to agree [1][2][3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
:)
Thanks. Always great to see you posting!
Yes and no. If the supremes throw out illegal votes it might change conventional control of the House. Not as likely as I'd like, but still possible. When the House is voting by State delegation however the GOP controls the House and will control it by more in new Congress. That is how a House vote on POTUS would be calculated. I don't know whether 'procedural votes' leading up to such would be calculated by delegation or by member, which might turn out to be important.
So all they can do is delay it. If the House holds together then none of the challenges will be passed and the challenge fails.
Rep. Mo Brooks plans to challenge Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, report
Haven’t we been hearing that Trump’s legal team has ultimately wanted to present their evidence of voting fraud to the Supreme Court?
Also, patriots who can get through the following long page about the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and its history will probably know more than Trump's legal team about how to save Trump's record-breaking landslide electoral vote reelection. /semi-sarc
Electoral Count Act
Although 2020 election is undoubtedly the biggest voting fraud mess in history as a consequence post-17th Amendment ratification and politically correct citizen voting power for president, the electoral college process has historically had its share of problems.
Also note that without the Civil War Union States declaring war on the Confederate states (correction welcome), the 1864 reelection of President Lincoln ignored the electoral votes of the Confederate states.
“Now, we need to hear from at least 1 Sen to state the same.”
“TED or RAND??”
Ted, OTOH, is my Senator (so is Cornholio, but he’s an utterly useless RINO tool of the Deep State). I will be giving him a phone call tomorrow, and the next day, etc. He made a big deal about the SCOTUS setting things aside...so him joining Brooks has to be made into his Plan B.
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.