Why the Trump SCOTUS victory is bigger than it looks

American Thinker ^ | 03/05/2024 | Matthew G. Andersson

[Danie_2023]

“I know they’ll try, but, how can Trump be held liable by any new legislation by congress for Jan6, when he was already acquitted by congress through the impeachment process?”

Communists (ie the Democrat leftists) don’t give a tinkers’ damn about the law or the rule of law. Never have. Never will.

[Jim Noble]

The U.S. Department of Justice has effectively been elevated to the level of a fourth branch of the Federal government

And this is EXACTLY what Watergate was all about. A man who won 61% of the popular vote and 520 electoral votes, but who crossed the Deep State once too often - including mentioning "the Dallas business" on tape regarding his tormentors - he had to go.

He's lucky they let him live.

[MrRelevant]

Didnt the Senate already acquit Trump over the “insurrection”?

[Golden Eagle]

Didnt the Senate already acquit Trump over the “insurrection”?

Yes, in response to the House impeachment. McConnell somewhat famously said he was voting against because Trump was already leaving office in a few days, and the court system could take it up then.

But had Pence refused to simply count the votes as required by the Constitution, with all the other chaos going on, both he and Trump would have been impeached and convicted basically overnight. Trump had few supporters in the Senate on J6 and that would have driven it to practically zero.

[metmom]

IMO, they didn’t do it for the right reasons, as CO is wrong, but because even some of them realized that the tactic could be used against the democrats by red states.

I admit that’s pure speculation but I’ve become so jaded over the last few years, that I just don’t see ANYONE in any political arena doing something purely for altruistic reasons or moral or ethical considerations.

[enumerated]

So you agree with Mike Pence - congress just rubber stamps a stolen election. Got it.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, Congress just "rubber stamps" whatever is handed to them from the states and the District of Columbia.

That's what COUNTING means ... doesn't it?

[Alberta's Child]

If Pence refused to do his job on January 6th, he probably would have just been voted out of the joint House/Senate session and replaced with the Senate pro tempore at the time. It would have been treated no differently than a case where Pence had suffered a health crisis that morning and was unable to carry out his duties.

That's what happened with Trump's second impeachment when Chief Justice John Roberts refused to preside over his trial in the Senate.

[Golden Eagle]

That’s possible, but wouldn’t have been the end of it. Had Pence/Trump refused to count the legally provided votes in the manner described in the Constitution, I believe they would have been judged as actually stepping over into insurrection territory by Republicans as well. They would have both been impeached, convicted, and prosecuted ASAP.

[enumerated]

Article 2 gives the state legislatures the authority to chuse the manner in which they select electors - but it’s nonsense to suggest that that choice includes cheating.

More importantly, there is a missing step that Article 2 is silent on: Article 2 says the state shall appoint electors (in a manner the Legislature directs) and clearly, every state legislature has directed that those electors will be bound according to the results of the popular vote in the state.

But since it is not known who will win the popular vote, there are alternate slates of potential electors n standby.

So here’s the problem: Article 2 says the electors themselves meet, vote, count, certify and transmit the result to US congress. But who decides which slate of electors?

The common practice is for the state’s executive branch to run the elections, count and certify who won the popular vote, which determines which slate of electors becomes the official electors who send their votes to the electoral college. So the state electors (supposedly appointed a manner directed by the legislature) is effectively rubber stamping the executive branch count. The executive branch is really who counts the votes and decides who won.

I’m not saying the state’s executive branches have hijacked the legislature’s role - just as likely, the legislatures are to blame for abdicating their responsibility. But either way, this is greatly at odds with the intention of Article 2, assigning that authority to the legislature. There is a god reason for giving this responsibility to the legislative branch: it is the branch most directly accountable to the people. So this disfunction needs to be rectified.

At the very least, the US congress - rather than rubber stamping - should take great care that there are no disputes between state’s legislatures and state executive branches.

In 2020 there were numerous letters from state legislators, disputing the executive branch certifications. These disputes would have been raised if the engineered J6 fedsurrection hadn’t short circuited the process - which was the whole point of J6.

[Alberta's Child]

First of all, you'd have to go back to the 1790s to see what the term "cheating" even means. Of the original 13 states, I believe fewer than half of them even had a popular vote for their presidential electors. Most of the electors were simply appointed by the state legislatures. The idea that every mouth-breathing moron who can breathe on a mirror would be allowed to vote in a presidential election would have been completely alien to the founders of this country.

At the very least, the US congress - rather than rubber stamping - should take great care that there are no disputes between state’s legislatures and state executive branches. In 2020 there were numerous letters from state legislators, disputing the executive branch certifications. These disputes would have been raised if the engineered J6 fedsurrection hadn’t short circuited the process - which was the whole point of J6.

That's a valid point. But in 2020 there wasn't a single state where ANYONE in a position of authority to act on behalf of a state government -- and by this I mean a legislative body (in its entirety), a governor, a secretary of state, an election commissioner, or anything of the sort -- even so much as suggested that there was any controversy related to the electors certified by their own state.

This is the most important thing to remember in the context of the January 6th certification vote in Congress. By the time Congress was involved in the matter on January 6th, there was no dispute about the electors they had been given.

There is a good reason for giving this responsibility to the legislative branch: it is the branch most directly accountable to the people. So this disfunction needs to be rectified.

In that scenario there is a whole different set of problems that may arise. Many states (including mine) have two legislative bodies (comparable to the House and Senate in the Federal government). What happens if the two houses of a state legislature don't agree on the presidential electors?