The court decision is limited to Pennsylvania, and your statement is so dopey as to place yourself into Windbag territory.
Posted on 02/06/2022 1:45:46 PM PST by RandFan
Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday that “vice presidents can’t simply decide not to certify” the result of an election, distancing himself from the repeated claims of former President Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump has insisted that former Vice President Mike Pence could have changed the results of the 2020 election.
“I just don’t think a vice president has that power,” Mr. Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“If President Trump runs for reelection, I believe he would defeat Joe Biden — and I don’t want Kamala Harris to have the power as vice president to overturn that election,” he said. “That is the same thing that I concluded in January of 2021.”
Mr. Pence scored headlines last week after delivering remarks before the Federalist Society in which he said, “President Trump is wrong.
“I had no right to overturn the election,” Mr. Pence said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
See Post #99, and please cite the exact provision of our Constitution that gives the VP any power to "certify" the election results.
It is a question of intent. Rubio is saying “If we stop a burglar from robbing our house, what’s to stop a mugger from robbing us four years from now?” It’s a non-sequitur - because there was an evident crime right in front of Pence and he didn’t want to look at it. To protect the GOP’s own methods, most likely.
Here you are arguing that the 11/3/20 election was constitutionally certified when we just learned the vote in Pennsylvania was unconstitutionally conducted. Your argument is as preposterous as your defense of Pence.
Pence is an example of why I’m not a Republican and people like you are why I’m not a conservative. Both groups have put America on the ropes.
Because she will not be the VP and chances are no replacement will get through.
Lil Marco isn’t the sharpest knife. This is already their plan. Only difference, the courts will rule in their favor.
1. Well, let's see. Pennsylvania's electoral votes in 2020 were certified on the date appointed by Congress (12/14/20). What exactly was "unconstitutional" about it?
2. Declaring a presidential election "unconstitutional" 15 months later is pretty pointless, isn't it? This is something that should have been done even BEFORE Election Day in 2020. This is like the NCAA disqualifying a national champion or a Heisman Trophy winner two years after the fact ... like anyone gives a sh!t about it by the time the decision is made.
Yes they can. Look at Hawaii in the 1960 Election.
The court decision is limited to Pennsylvania, and your statement is so dopey as to place yourself into Windbag territory.
Ironically, Richard Nixon was not only one of the two candidates in the 1960 election ... he was also the sitting VP presiding over the joint session of Congress in January 1961. By the time that joint session was held, the final recount in Hawaii had established Kennedy as the winner. Nixon could have legitimately accepted both sets of disputed electors and had Congress vote on them, but he decided it wasn't even worth pursuing.
Are you going to come back here to this thread in a few weeks or months and cite the Pennsylvania courts as authoritative on this matter when the decision is overturned on appeal to the PA Supreme Court?
He has a point. Anyway, if Pence thought he could have decided the election, he wouldn’t have decided it in favor of Trump.
Yes, for you it is pointless. Establishment Defenders are most comfortable ignoring constitutional restraints.
Yes there has. Dead people. No signatures in ballots. Election laws changed without proper authority. People voting from addresses that didn’t exist. Multiple people voting from the same location. Every court punted or claimed, lack of Standing, as a catch all. I could go on.
You’re either a liberal troll on this site or you’re a Cruz/Christie/Bush/Fiorina/Rubio/RINO/GOPe/NationalReview/Goldberg/ Benson/Erickson/Shapiro/ChamberofCommerce/Cheney/Kinzinger supporting “Republican” who thinks they’re smarter than everyone. Fine.
And out of politeness, do not respond/comment to me ever again.
“The Hawaii fiasco in 1960 was very different than 2020 in one important respect: Both sets of electors — Kennedy’s and Nixon’s — were submitted for the joint session of Congress in early January 1961. This would have been a textbook case of “disputed” electors to be considered by Congress under the Electoral Count Act of 1877. This is why I said back in November and December of 2020 that the legislatures of the disputed states should have voted for a separate slate of electors to send to Congress.
Ironically, Richard Nixon was not only one of the two candidates in the 1960 election ... he was also the sitting VP presiding over the joint session of Congress in January 1961. By the time that joint session was held, the final recount in Hawaii had established Kennedy as the winner. Nixon could have legitimately accepted both sets of disputed electors and had Congress vote on them, but he decided it wasn’t even worth pursuing. “
The states have the final say, and Hawaii was changed later. The same could have happened in 2020.
Let her try it after Trump wins in 2024.
See what happens?
And a full audit will show that Trump won by an even LARGER MARGIN.
2. You haven’t cited a single shred of evidence to support a claim that a different candidate would have won a single state if none of the irregularities and illegalities in the 2020 election ever happened.
3. I despise almost every one of the Republicans you listed, and I find the remaining few to be tolerable at best. I’m not — and never have been — a Republican.
4. Donald Trump is the only political candidate I have ever supported financially in my life.
5. See #1.
6. Have a wonderful evening and a great week ahead.
Interesting that AlbertasChild is running his/her mouth about the election, it’s Constitutionality, blah blah blah.
Earlier he/she commented that no evidence was ever brought when in fact it was. In spades.
Interestingly, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to modify the states election laws. Upon learning that the Governor, Lt Governor and Secretary of State were modifying the laws outside of what they agreed to and without authority, the legislature went to the liberal state Supreme Court. They were told they have no standing because there was no injury. After the election, after learning of serious issues, they went back and were told it was too late.
Putz, you made a false statement and you’ve been called on it. So, what follows is not for you but for those wishing to learn about US History.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) (Pub.L. 49–90, 24 Stat. 373, later codified at Title 3, Chapter 1) is a United States federal law adding to procedures set out in the Constitution of the United States for the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election.
The ultimate arbiter of Electors are STATE LEGISLATURES, not Governors, not Congress, not the President of the US Senate (VP).
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The Act clarifies the Vice President’s limited role in the count.
The Twelfth Amendment says nothing about January 6. January 6 is a day scheduled for convenience of Congress and can be changed, especially if serious objections are filed for hearing.
According to Congress, both houses can:
1. Overrule the Vice President’s decision to include or exclude votes and,
2. Under the ECA, even if the chambers disagree, the governor’s certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie.
THERE WERE OBJECTORS IN BOTH CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AND PRESENT EVIDENCE ON JANUARY 6, 2021. PENCE BLEW THEM OFF.
Thus, the Constitution’s 12th Amendment was proceeding until Pence decided on his own that the 12th Amendment was irrelevant by distracting with the lie that he was being asked to “overturn the election.” This is a lie. He was asked to delay his counting until objections were heard and votes were taken.
The proper response for Judas Pence was to announce that the counting of Electoral Votes would be delayed until scheduled objections were heard in both chambers and votes were taken.
Pence did not do this.
Instead, he framed his treason as “refusing to overturn an election.”
He joined in the coup of President Trump who won by a landslide.
Hawaii’s electoral votes were never changed. They submitted slates of electors for BOTH candidates. It was the final result of the state’s popular vote that changed from one candidate to another after the electoral vote deadline, not the certified electoral vote.
Something worth noting here is that Congress could have legitimately voted to accept the Nixon electors from Hawaii even though the final popular vote totals published in late December 1960 showed Kennedy as the winner. That’s the risk a state runs when it can’t get its act together in the electoral vote process. There’s no guarantee that Congress will get it “right.”
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.