Thomas Massie's Statement on Congressional Vote Regarding Presidential Electors

[CaptUSA]

I agree 100%.. just commenting on any role congress could have.. and it would just be to expose the information widely so people and state legislatures are pressured to stand up and do something.

They are not going to kill their golden goose. The last thing they want is for people to question the legitimacy of the ruling class.

 

[familydog]

I don't understand this claim.

Of course you can do something about it before the election. If you want to change election laws, then before an election is the only reasonable time to do it. Not wait until after an election and then try to change the election laws retroactively because you didn't like the result.

In Pennsylvania, Act 77 of 2019 was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Wolf. This law clearly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution. Don't take my word for it, take the legislature's word. To change mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, you have to amend the state Constitution. The legislature started this process (which requires multiple legislative sessions), but then gave up when they realized it would take too long. So they just passed a bill. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit in November challenging the act because it was filed too late. There is no way on Earth the state court would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed prior to the election. They would have ruled that Kelly has no standing since no harm was done (yet).

What now? Governor Wolf won't sign a bill overturning Act 77. The State Court won't overturn it. SCOTUS won't get involved. As a voter, what recourse do you have? Go to your state rep or Senator? What are they suppose to do? Back to square one. Voters are stuck with an unconstitutional law that can never be fixed unless presumably a Republican is governor. That's no guarantee in Pennsylvania. Even then, who is to say the State Court won't overturn the repeal to stop the "disenfranchisement of voters?"

If the people of Pennsylvania don't like the way their current election laws played out last year because they allowed too much fraud, then their legislature can and should replace those laws with new ones that will take effect in future elections. If they really want to legislate that the states' electors should just be decided directly by the state legislature without a statewide vote by the citizenry (which, let's be honest, would be very a very unpopular law even if they could get it passed), then they can do that for 2024.

It's not just about fraud. The Secretary of State unconstitutionally changed election laws unilaterally. The legislature changed election laws unconstitutionally. The election itself has to be considered unconstitutional. Every single vote could be honest, but it doesn't matter. The process was unconstitutional. However, both State and federal Courts have determined that voters (and now the legislature) have literally no recourse. None. Zip.

Also, it is Pennsylvania law that the Governor sends electors to the college. The election code is clear. The legislature is not empowered to do anything. Does Pennsylvania's election code violate the US Constitution? Perhaps, but that's for the US Supreme Court to determine and they have already signaled that they do not want to be involved.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What are some examples of historical precedent you have in mind?

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 has set the method for objections by Members of Congress to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, lawmakers may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately for no more than two hours; each Member may speak for five minutes or less. After each house votes on whether to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If both chambers agree to the objection, the electoral votes in question are not counted. If either chamber opposes the objection, the votes are counted.

• Objections to the Electoral College votes were recorded in 1969 and 2005. In both cases, the House and Senate rejected the objections and the votes in question were counted.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/


The precedent is also supported by previous cases where the President of the Senate has determined whether to count Electors:

https://macris.substack.com/p/who-counts-the-votes-of-the-presidential
https://macris.substack.com/p/if-chaos-is-a-ladder-americas-election

There is no basis to claim that Congress is intended as a rubber stamp, the founders would not have involved them at all if they didn't have a role, it is implicit in the act of counting votes to determine fraudulent votes and reject them.

It is also against the ancient precedent that no man may be a judge in his own case to say that the states which conducted the fraud are the only resort to remedy it.

Massie is not just wrong here, he is horribly wrong, the citizens of the contested states and of all the other states are being deprived of their constitutional rights and he has no right to say "they cheated fair and square, let them have it".

 

[Invisible Man]

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 has set the method for objections by Members of Congress to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, lawmakers may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately for no more than two hours; each Member may speak for five minutes or less. After each house votes on whether to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If both chambers agree to the objection, the electoral votes in question are not counted. If either chamber opposes the objection, the votes are counted.

• Objections to the Electoral College votes were recorded in 1969 and 2005. In both cases, the House and Senate rejected the objections and the votes in question were counted.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/


The precedent is also supported by previous cases where the President of the Senate has determined whether to count Electors:

https://macris.substack.com/p/who-counts-the-votes-of-the-presidential
https://macris.substack.com/p/if-chaos-is-a-ladder-americas-election

There is no basis to claim that Congress is intended as a rubber stamp, the founders would not have involved them at all if they didn't have a role, it is implicit in the act of counting votes to determine fraudulent votes and reject them.

It is also against the ancient precedent that no man may be a judge in his own case to say that the states which conducted the fraud are the only resort to remedy it.

Massie is not just wrong here, he is horribly wrong, the citizens of the contested states and of all the other states are being deprived of their constitutional rights and he has no right to say "they cheated fair and square, let them have it".

As far as I could tell from what I just read from those links, none of them provide precedent for the Vice President having authority not to count the very same electoral votes that were certified, sealed, and sent by each state, nor to replace them with others.

As you mention, when objections were raised by individual members of Congress (and there were also objections in 2016, in addition to the years you mention, possibly other years too for all I know), they were overruled. Of course members of Congress can put on whatever show they choose to put on. But I haven't seen any evidence of historical precedent for any such shows having any effect on the electoral vote count.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be vice president or president.

Neither of her parents were American citizens when she was born, nor permanent residents, they had temporary student visas, nor did remained in the country - Harris's mother after she was divorced left with her daughter to live in Canada, nor would they gotten citizenship without hardship, they were both activists, with her father frequently being cited as a Marxists.

Massie is lying or ignorant when he says Congress has no role over the elections. The constitution itself spells out the roll, and does not assume it will in all cases be settled quickly. And this issue, even being eligible, is one that is his job.

 

[CultureCurage]

The fact that she won means many believed she's fit for the role which is not something I 100% agree with, but it's really a big question of why would people think that way? Is it because a lot of the population could relate to her, like her, I'm really not sure.

 

[Sammy]

Thomas Massie is dead wrong.

For most Trump supporters he is dead. But they are wrong too.

Nobody is perfect.