Would need some combination of 37 electoral votes to be decertified. Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan is exactly 37. Nevada, Pennsylvania and Georgia would be 42, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada is also 42. We just have to have 3 of the correct states to just not send a slate of electors.
so many questions. first, jan 6th is AFTER christmas eve, so what does this have to do with firing squads on christmas eve? second, the votes in the senate and the house. How are the votes added up and how does this elect Trump? I mean I get the one vote per state in the house, so if trump gets 30 and biden gets 20, how are the senate votes added to this and what does it mean? or are they not added to it? what are the senate votes for? Im missing something here. Also, as others have mentioned, does this only happen if enough states are objected to so that no one gets a majority of state votes? this is so confusing. I wish there was someplace that laid this process out exactly. seems like a lot of mis-information or partial information is all over the place
Great retard, I didn't say this was from Jenna. The body of it is essentially a copy paste from statements from other legal strategy organizations. This strategy is not some secret squirrel shit that some asshole is predicting on the chans, it is literally the same strategy that pro trump constitutional lawyers are saying.
Except you don't fucking know because it hasn't happened before and this is strategy based on constitutional lawyers interpretation of the 12th amendment.
It isn't fake news, it is uncharted waters. It is the argument between the interpretation of the 12th Amendment versus Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Nothing says Pence cannot reject the slate of electors in the 12th Amendment, it grants him the sole right to count the votes and determine which slate of electors is valid.
The EC Act of 1987 was written and explained the process of determining what slate should be counted. This is the law you are basing your claim from whether you know it or not. The problem with this law is that it has never been challenged and its constitutionality is in question because the only way to alter this is by constitutional convention.
So now you see that Pence can do what ever he wants, it will not determine the winner immediately but it will absolutely require SCOTUS to actually take the case. If Pence rejects the certified electors it is immediately going to be contested by Democrats and they will sue.
The senate is totally unnecessary if middle steps aren't excluded in this post. Why even bother having the senate show up?
Pretty sure this is how it works:
One objection in both house and senate (both seconded) regarding the official electors is required, then they break for two hours and come back. The house and senate then have independent votes on whether or not they should pursue the objection to specific state certifications. Simple majority decides if state electors shouldn't be certified (either chamber is ok I think). Repeat for all instances of contention. After all contests are resolved the electors are recounted. ONLY THEN if no candidate has a simple majority of electors does the house delegation occur.
That is how it works via interpretation of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the point of contention is the 12th Amendment and it's appointment of the President of the Senate having the right to count electors.
The EC Act of 1887 was created after the election of 1876 and has never been tested in courts and is consider unconstitutional by some law scholars as it alters the constitution without ratification to the constitution.
As far as I can tell, your interpretation is correct but the question is does this law trump the 12th Amendment.
I am positive that this only happens if no one has 270.
You right. I think the logic behind this is that the electors for those states will be contested and not legal to certify.
Would need some combination of 37 electoral votes to be decertified. Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan is exactly 37. Nevada, Pennsylvania and Georgia would be 42, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada is also 42. We just have to have 3 of the correct states to just not send a slate of electors.
What would mean at least 2 of the contested states would have to be thrown out right?
At least 3, I dont see enough votes in just 2 states.
So what if they both have 270?
Then they go to the House and they vote by House rules, not per state, which Nancy Pelosi has a majority.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-
They mixed up two processes. Contested votes are not by state delegation. That is only if nobody has 270.
so many questions. first, jan 6th is AFTER christmas eve, so what does this have to do with firing squads on christmas eve? second, the votes in the senate and the house. How are the votes added up and how does this elect Trump? I mean I get the one vote per state in the house, so if trump gets 30 and biden gets 20, how are the senate votes added to this and what does it mean? or are they not added to it? what are the senate votes for? Im missing something here. Also, as others have mentioned, does this only happen if enough states are objected to so that no one gets a majority of state votes? this is so confusing. I wish there was someplace that laid this process out exactly. seems like a lot of mis-information or partial information is all over the place
We cannot risk doing this. We have a 2 senator lead, and Romney, Graham and McConnell are not dependable. Its EO 2018 or Kraken Dominion imo
I cannot disagree. Thank you for the post. The Truth sets us free. PEDES rule.
You think this is real?
However, we've heard what McConnell's been up too today. It might not get up to that point. Hopefully, fraud will be proven by January 6th.
So one from the house and one from the senate
How? This is just copy pasta from many legitimate organizations that are in support of Trump.
Great retard, I didn't say this was from Jenna. The body of it is essentially a copy paste from statements from other legal strategy organizations. This strategy is not some secret squirrel shit that some asshole is predicting on the chans, it is literally the same strategy that pro trump constitutional lawyers are saying.
Learn to fucking read you retard.
Except you don't fucking know because it hasn't happened before and this is strategy based on constitutional lawyers interpretation of the 12th amendment.
It isn't fake news, it is uncharted waters. It is the argument between the interpretation of the 12th Amendment versus Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Nothing says Pence cannot reject the slate of electors in the 12th Amendment, it grants him the sole right to count the votes and determine which slate of electors is valid.
The EC Act of 1987 was written and explained the process of determining what slate should be counted. This is the law you are basing your claim from whether you know it or not. The problem with this law is that it has never been challenged and its constitutionality is in question because the only way to alter this is by constitutional convention.
So now you see that Pence can do what ever he wants, it will not determine the winner immediately but it will absolutely require SCOTUS to actually take the case. If Pence rejects the certified electors it is immediately going to be contested by Democrats and they will sue.
The senate is totally unnecessary if middle steps aren't excluded in this post. Why even bother having the senate show up?
Pretty sure this is how it works:
One objection in both house and senate (both seconded) regarding the official electors is required, then they break for two hours and come back. The house and senate then have independent votes on whether or not they should pursue the objection to specific state certifications. Simple majority decides if state electors shouldn't be certified (either chamber is ok I think). Repeat for all instances of contention. After all contests are resolved the electors are recounted. ONLY THEN if no candidate has a simple majority of electors does the house delegation occur.
That is how it works via interpretation of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the point of contention is the 12th Amendment and it's appointment of the President of the Senate having the right to count electors.
The EC Act of 1887 was created after the election of 1876 and has never been tested in courts and is consider unconstitutional by some law scholars as it alters the constitution without ratification to the constitution.
As far as I can tell, your interpretation is correct but the question is does this law trump the 12th Amendment.