December 30, 2020 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #1933824emes nisht shekerParticipant
Sounds like we have entered the loony zone where any and all theories of how the constitution works that ujm concocts is worthy of dicussion.
Let’t make it simple. Ujm you are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Trump, Giuliani, Powell, McEnany, and Ellis are also wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. There is nothing else to say. Losing in court 60 times, including 2 losses in the Supreme Court, means I am not saying wrong enough here.December 30, 2020 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1933829
Thanks for the reply.
A follow up question, I checked the constitution for the mechanism outlining the existence of backup electors, giving states the ability to send multiple slates. I can’t find it, where is this idea mentioned please?
To be clear so if aAl gore decided “forget electors im just gonna declare myself president” in that case the court COULD intervene. Correct? Even though it would telling “Congress how to handle its internal policies, regulations and/or legislative rulings. ” ?December 30, 2020 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #1933844
ENS: You left your thinking cap far away. No part of my discussion was anything other than January 6 — which has NOT been litigated altogether.December 30, 2020 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #1933850
thanks for your response
A few clarification points.
1) Where did you get this notion of two opposing sets of electors being a thing. I checked the constitution it isnt there. Where do you get the idea that there is such a mechanism for a state to send alternate electors. Can you please point to this mechanism existence in the constitution ?
The constitution is quite clear “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”
Note A number of electors. no mention of a second backup set. There is simply no such thing
2) No state submitted opposing sets of electors this year either. Sure a few nut jobs may have appointed themselves. We can do the same I appoint myself and my 613 electoral votes all for you. This has EXACTLY as much legal significance as other self appointed electors . As the constitution says “Each State shall appoint,…” (article 2 section1) It isn’t: whoever feels up to it shal appoint themselves
So even if there where such a mechanism (there isn’t see #1) NO state acted upon it * still not much Pence can do within the confines of the constitution
3) so just to clarify your evolving position: in 2000. If Gore had said “forget electors I’m not counting any of them I’m President and thats that” The court would intervene and rule it unconstitutional (assuming it came to that and he wasn’t dragged out kicking and screaming) Even though this would be “tell[ing] Congress how to handle its internal policies, regulations and/or legislative rulings”
*To be fair if there was such a thing some states may have utilized this option, but there is no such thing and they didn’t.December 30, 2020 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1933883
ubiq — The Electoral Count Act specifically addresses the problem of their being multiple sets of electors submitted to Congress coming from the same state. Because that act was passed by Congress in response to that exact problem having occurred just a few years before the act became law.December 30, 2020 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm #1933890
Yes it does
and it essentially disallows it (becasue it was a problem that occurred in 1876, a few years before) . It leaves each STATE not the vice President to determine who the States’ electors are
so to sum up.
There is no ability for states to send multiple electors
and no state did.
Pence, like the Rest of the US government is bound by the constituion and cant just act as he sees fit.
Sure there can be some procedural delay on Jan 6, but that is all.
I’m so sorry you had to find out this wayDecember 30, 2020 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #1933895
(follow up to pending comment)
In fact Louie gohmert is trying to get The Electoral count act thrown out as unconstitutional. (that is the subject of this thread!) And get Pence to be the final arbitrator. The ACt you cite is the very law that clearly PREVENTS Pence from acting wily nily (Not that he necessarily could do what he wanted before the Act was signed, but the constitution is vaguer which resulted in 1876 problems so while ALL your comments on this thread were wrong in 1886 (before the electoral count became law) you could TRY to make a case. After the Electoral count act there isnt even room for discussionDecember 30, 2020 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1933897
“if aAl gore decided “forget electors im just gonna declare myself president” in that case the court COULD intervene. Correct?”
No. The court could not intervene. If the court was asked to intervene the court would declare the issue a political question for Congress to fix and something the courts are unqualified to address.
Congress could override the presiding officer (i.e. the Vice President) *if* a majority of both houses of Congress voted to override the action of the Vice President. In the absence of a majority of both houses voting to override him, the ruling of the Vice President would stand.December 30, 2020 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1933898
“No state submitted opposing sets of electors this year either. Sure a few nut jobs may have appointed themselves.”
Five states this year have multiple competing slates of electors. The Electoral Count Act clearly states that the Vice President shall open all *purported* slates of electors submitted to Congress. Even if it seems to be a complete farce. In fact, in either 2008 or 2012 (I forget which year it was) some comedian submitted an official looking purported slate of electors for a state as a joke and, in accordance with the act, Congress opened and acknowledged it.December 31, 2020 7:05 am at 7:05 am #1934013
“The court could not intervene. If the court was asked to intervene the court would declare the issue a political question for Congress to fix and something the courts are unqualified to address.”
This is of course wrong (and doesnt even make sense)
so You are saying we are lucky Biden Cheney Gore didn’t act on this magical ability they have secretly been granted that only a few MAGA supporters are aware of?
“Five states this year have multiple competing slates of electors. ”
This is incorrect
There are 5 states where people appointed themselves as “backup electors” but people appointing themselves has no legal meaning. NO state legislature or governor appointed any backup electors
“The Electoral Count Act clearly states that the Vice President shall open all *purported* slates of electors submitted to Congress”
It doesn’t give the Vice President the ability to decide which to count. That paower belongs solely to the states
Again Ghomert wants the Electoral count act thrown out, becasue he thinks the constituio lets the Vice President decide (he is wrong of course but that is his clam) but with the Electoral count act still Law The VP clearly doesnt get to choose, and without it he probably doesnt
and again No state sent 2 sets of electors
“some comedian submitted an official looking purported slate of electors for a state as a joke and, in accordance with the act, Congress opened and acknowledged it.”
while this has zero bearing on anything you’ve incorrectly said. It is still interesting. Can you please provide a bit more details What comedian? what state? OR reference to story Google is turning up nothing
thanksDecember 31, 2020 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #1934082
U.S. Const. amdt. XII —
The Senate president is required by the Constitution to “open all the certificates”.
3 U.S.C. § 15 —
The Act further describes as “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates”.
Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541. —
Regarding whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper submitted as a states electoral college vote, concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.
(The Senate president is the Vice President of the United States.)
Regarding my earlier reference to the joke, I got the year wrong. In one case from 1889, papers sent as a “practical joke” have been presented to the joint session. (Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541.)December 31, 2020 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #1934208
““open all the certificates”.”
“Regarding whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper submitted as a states electoral college vote, concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.”
Interesting source regarding the requirement to PResent (year wasnt even close….)
Still doesn’t really help your case. Even if required to read any purported ballots (which would require Both houses to concur or one plus himself according to the source you cite)
He STILL does not get the power to choose which to accept.
His job is solely to open them and read them . He does not have the power to object or choose one over another
If he did have this magic power 1. SOMEBODY would’ve used it by now 2. It would be mentioned n the excellent article you cite someplace over the course of its 131 pages it would mention that BTW the Vice President has sole discretion in choosing whcih electors he likes. ITs not there because he doesn’t have this power
In fact it says the opposite (pg 634 ) “The ECA’s procedural provisions have two purposes. … The second is to drain away as much power as possible from he Senate President, whom the ECA appoints to preside at the joint session when Congress counts the votes”
In other words the VP (President of the senate ) has essentially NO power over the determinationDecember 31, 2020 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #1934238
The scholarly law review I cited, at the above-mentioned page, states that the VP’s decision to not present a submitted electoral vote would stand unless a majority of both houses of Congress voted to overrule the VP’s decision.December 31, 2020 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #1934273
I’m so sorry but it doesnt
the page you cited (pg 541) is the table of contents . would love to see what page you think you saw that on..
Though worth noting you seem to have at least changed your view on this “Pence might just declare Trump the winner when he constitutionally presides over the Joint Session on January 6. His ruling is that final ruling”
now you at least grant that “majority of both houses of Congress voted to overrule the VP’s decision.”
(Though this isnt quite right)December 31, 2020 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #1934379
NEw (related Question
on Jan 6, when (not if) Pence doesn’t acknowledge any “alternate ” electors and certifies A Biden presidency (perhaps after some needless time wasting by a group that puts party over country at every turn) Would that at all make you question your understanding of the process? What ifs your lanned “explanation” for why he won’t install Trump?January 1, 2021 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #1934510Reb EliezerParticipant
Looks like Pence is an honorable person. He says, you are sueing the wrong party as congress sets the rules.January 6, 2021 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #1935873
Sorry Pence didnt see your misinterpretation of the scholarly law review in time
Do you think he is in on it? Or perhaps your contention was mistaken?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.