McConnell and top Republicans urge GOP senators not to object to election results on Jan. 6

The peculiar passive-voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.”

That would be a strained reading. Had the drafters intended the President of the Senate to have such authority the sentence would have read the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and count the votes.”

If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all.

Not necessarily. If both bodies have enacted a statute such as the Electoral Count Act, there might not be a stalemate.

The Congressional Record of the passage of the Electoral Count Act records the opinion of many prominent legislators who held the view that the President of the Senate opens and counts the votes

Yet the Act as passed didn’t adopt this view with regard to determining which electoral votes to count.

Regarding the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act, Mr. Kesavan is of the view that SCOTUS implicitly viewed that it was in Bush v. Gore:

While 3 U.S.C. 15 sets forth the rules for counting (and not counting) electoral votes, 3 U.S.C. 5, the specific federal statutory provision at issue in Bush v. Gore, sets forth the so-called "safe harbor" provision for counting electoral votes with respect to a state's determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of its electors. Bush v. Gore indicates that there must be nine votes on the Supreme Court for the proposition that 3 U.S.C. 5 is constitutional. Although neither party briefed or argued the constitutionality of this provision of the Electoral Count Act, each of the Justices must have reached an independent, antecedent determination that 3 U.S.C. 5 passes constitutional muster. Curiously, Bush v. Gore, for all that it did address regarding presidential election, did not address the heart of the Electoral Count Act - 3 U.S.C. 15. Only Justice Breyer, with Justices Stevens and Ginsburg concurring, even mentioned this key section, and he did so approvingly. The prevailing wisdom, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, is that the Electoral Count Act is constitutional. 80 North Carolina Law Rev. at 1659-1660 (footnotes omitted)

In any event, this is all academic unless and until a state legislature sends a slate of electors different from that which has previously been submitted. That is, unless one wants to argue that, contrary to the Constitution, Pence could count the votes of electors who’ve been appointed by the Pittsburgh Kiwanis Club, the University of Michigan physics department, two barflies from a pub in Georgia, a group of disgruntled GOP legislators from Wisconsin, or any other non-legislative body. Even Pence isn’t stupid enough to do that.
 
That would be a strained reading. Had the drafters intended the President of the Senate to have such authority the sentence would have read the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and count the votes.”



Not necessarily. If both bodies have enacted a statute such as the Electoral Count Act, there might not be a stalemate.



Yet the Act as passed didn’t adopt this view with regard to determining which electoral votes to count.

Regarding the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act, Mr. Kesavan is of the view that SCOTUS implicitly viewed that it was in Bush v. Gore:



In any event, this is all academic unless and until a state legislature sends a slate of electors different from that which has previously been submitted. That is, unless one wants to argue that, contrary to the Constitution, Pence could count the votes of electors who’ve been appointed by the Pittsburgh Kiwanis Club, the University of Michigan physics department, two barflies from a pub in Georgia, a group of disgruntled GOP legislators from Wisconsin, or any other non-legislative body. Even Pence isn’t stupid enough to do that.
Try reading, history is full of Senate Presidents deciding to accept questionable (or even outright illegal/unconstitutional) elector slates.
And with the blatant fraud that has been shown it would be fully justified for Pence to accept the alternate slates and reject the fraud based slates.
 
Try reading, history is full of Senate Presidents deciding to accept questionable (or even outright illegal/unconstitutional) elector slates.

So just because VP's have acted illegally in the past means they should continue to do so?

And with the blatant fraud that has been shown it would be fully justified for Pence to accept the alternate slates and reject the fraud based slates.

No fraud has been shown. Trump's lawyers tried this false narrative in court and got poured out (sometimes they didn't plead fraud, realizing they had no evidence). Even Bill Barr concluded there was no widespread fraud. You've drunk way too much of Trump's Kool-Aid.

Pence has no authority to accept a slate that hasn't been approved, directly or indirectly, by a state legislature. But you're OK with his violation of the Constitution. It figures -- screw the law, we need to elect the Narcissist-in-Chief at any cost!
 
Mitch is a chinese operative. Haven't you people figured this out yet? He is closely tied to a chinese ccp member , through his sister or his wife.
 
So just because VP's have acted illegally in the past means they should continue to do so?



No fraud has been shown. Trump's lawyers tried this false narrative in court and got poured out (sometimes they didn't plead fraud, realizing they had no evidence). Even Bill Barr concluded there was no widespread fraud. You've drunk way too much of Trump's Kool-Aid.

Pence has no authority to accept a slate that hasn't been approved, directly or indirectly, by a state legislature. But you're OK with his violation of the Constitution. It figures -- screw the law, we need to elect the Narcissist-in-Chief at any cost!


Of course the socialist/parasitic Axis believes that whatever it takes to create a communist paradise is not fraud.


.
 
So just because VP's have acted illegally in the past means they should continue to do so?



No fraud has been shown. Trump's lawyers tried this false narrative in court and got poured out (sometimes they didn't plead fraud, realizing they had no evidence). Even Bill Barr concluded there was no widespread fraud. You've drunk way too much of Trump's Kool-Aid.

Pence has no authority to accept a slate that hasn't been approved, directly or indirectly, by a state legislature. But you're OK with his violation of the Constitution. It figures -- screw the law, we need to elect the Narcissist-in-Chief at any cost!
It isn't illegal.
And the fraud has been more than proven.

Pence has the authority and he must use it.
 
It isn't illegal.
And the fraud has been more than proven.

Pence has the authority and he must use it.

Do you know what the chances are that Pence will count the Trump "electors" at all from those states? Zero. So there's no point in even discussing the legality of it.
 
Do you know what the chances are that Pence will count the Trump "electors" at all from those states? Zero. So there's no point in even discussing the legality of it.

Smugs, You don’t speak for conservatives.
 
Smugs, You don’t speak for conservatives.

Why would I? I never claimed to be a conservative. I thought this was a libertarian forum?

Goodness gracious, what has happened to this place in the last 8 years?
 
WRONG AGAIN


VP Pence will have the choice of two lists of certified EC electors, those provided by GOP Representatives from the battleground states and those provided by the treasonous, seditious Demo Rats.

. Which ones do you think he will select?


.

Bump.
 
Pence's official statement:
Text:

Dear Colleague:

Today, for the 59th time in our Nation's history, Congress will convene in Joint Session to count the electoral votes for President of the United States. Under our Constitution, it will be my duty as Vice President and as President of the Senate to serve as the presiding officer.

After an election with significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of this election. The American people choose the American President, and have every integrity of this election. The American people choose the American President, and have every right under the law to demand free and fair elections and a full investigation of electoral misconduct. As presiding officer, I will do my duty to ensure that these concerns receive a fair and open hearing in the Congress of the United States. Objections will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the elected representatives of the American people will make their decision.

Our Founders created the Electoral College in 1787, and it first convened in 1789. With the advent of political parties, the Electoral College was amended in 1804 to provide that Electors vote separately for President and Vice President. Following a contentious election in 1876, with widespread allegations of fraud and malfeasance, Congress spent a decade establishing rules and procedures to govern the counting of electoral votes and the resolution of any objections.

During the 130 years since the Electoral Count Act was passed, Congress has, without exception, used these formal procedures to count the electoral votes every four years.

Given the controversy surrounding this year's election, some approach this year's quadrennial tradition with great expectation, and others with dismissive disdain. Some believe that as Vice President, I should be able to accept or reject electoral votes unilaterally. Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a Joint Session of Congress.

After a careful study of our Constitution, our laws, and our history, I believe neither view is correct.

The President is the chief executive officer of the Federal Government under our Constitution, possessing immense power to impact the lives of the American people. The Presidency belongs to the American people, and to them alone. When disputes concerning a presidential election arise, under Federal law, it is the people's representatives who review the evidence and resolve disputes through a democratic process.

Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States.

While my role as presiding officer is largely ceremonial, the role of the Congress is much different, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 establishes a clear procedure to address election controversies when they arise during the count of the vote of the Electoral College. Given the voting irregularities that took place in our November elections and the disregard of state election statutes by some officials, I welcome the efforts of Senate and House members who have stepped statutes by some officials, I welcome the efforts of Senate and House members who have stepped forward to use their authority under the law to raise objections and present evidence.

As presiding officer, I will ensure that any objections that are sponsored by both a Representative and a Senator are given proper consideration, and that all facts supporting those objections are and a Senator are given proper consideration, and that all facts supporting those objections are brought before the Congress and the American people. Those who suggest that raising objections under the Electoral Count Act is improper or undemocratic ignore more than 130 years of history, and fail to acknowledge that Democrats raised objections in Congress each of the last three times that a Republican candidate for President prevailed.

Today it will be my duty to preside when the Congress convenes in Joint Session to count the votes of the Electoral College, and I will do so to the best of my ability. I ask only that Representatives and Senators who will assemble before me approach this moment with the same sense of duty and an open mind, setting politics and personal interests aside, and do our part to faithfully discharge our duties under the Constitution. I also pray that we will do so with humility and faith, remembering the words of John Quincy Adams, who said, "Duty is ours; results are God's."



Four years ago, surrounded by my family, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which ended with the words, "So help me God." Today I want to assure the American people that I will keep the oath I made to them and I will keep the oath I made to Almighty God. When the Joint Session of Congress convenes today, I will do my duty to see to it that we open the certificates of the Electors of the several states, we hear objections raised by Senators and Representatives, and we count the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and history. So Help Me God.

/end
 
Kudos to Pence for having the backbone to stand up to the Narcissist-in-Chief and not try to exercise a nonexistent authority that, if Biden had attempted to use it in January 2017, would have caused the Trump lemmings' heads to explode.
 
Back
Top