How do you figure that pence does not have the constitutional power count the electors in the manner that he sees fit?
Despite the conflict in the electoral counts act
And the 12th amendment, BOTH acknowledge pence’s power to count electoral votes.
The 12th amendment has explicit instructions indicating the manner in which votes should be counted and the manner in which competing or disputed electors should be addressed.
Unless I am missing something, I don’t see why pence could not disregard the conflicting (and prima facia unconstitutional) provisions in the electoral count act and follow the 12th amendment. This would eliminate the need for senators to object and send it straight to the house ( by state delegation, not individual state representative ) if pence felt the need to punt.
It says he shall count the votes. The alternative electors sent are are not a “this or that”. They are there only to allow the Trump campaign to continue legal challenges. There’s absolutely nothing in the constitution that say the VP can pick what he wants. Pence will open the envelopes and count for each state. When the battleground states come up there will be objections. Those objections will trigger a two hour debate where evidence can be presented. Then there will be a vote from the house and the senate to either sustain the objections or override them. BOTH houses must agree in the objections or the original count will stand.
Where is that procedure located in the constitution?
The 12th amendment gives exactly zero power of the members of the senate to object to anything. The written objection from rep and senators AND the two hour debate language is found in the electoral count act.
The 12th amendment gives the dispute resolution power to house of reps by state delegation where the president of senate cannot count a majority for any party.
Those are two conflicting procedures. Why would the simple majority-passed piece of legislation (electoral count act ) dictate the procedure rather than the constitution?
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President opens the electoral certificates in his capacity as President of the Senate. However, the Act constrains the Vice President's role in the count.[2][6] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's — or his own — defeat. Richard Nixon, Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Joe Biden all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[11][12]
Nixon graciously made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him,[13] while Gore rejected many challenges to the disputed votes from Florida, [14] and in 1968, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[1
How do you figure that pence does not have the constitutional power count the electors in the manner that he sees fit? Despite the conflict in the electoral counts act And the 12th amendment, BOTH acknowledge pence’s power to count electoral votes.
The 12th amendment has explicit instructions indicating the manner in which votes should be counted and the manner in which competing or disputed electors should be addressed.
Unless I am missing something, I don’t see why pence could not disregard the conflicting (and prima facia unconstitutional) provisions in the electoral count act and follow the 12th amendment. This would eliminate the need for senators to object and send it straight to the house ( by state delegation, not individual state representative ) if pence felt the need to punt.
It says he shall count the votes. The alternative electors sent are are not a “this or that”. They are there only to allow the Trump campaign to continue legal challenges. There’s absolutely nothing in the constitution that say the VP can pick what he wants. Pence will open the envelopes and count for each state. When the battleground states come up there will be objections. Those objections will trigger a two hour debate where evidence can be presented. Then there will be a vote from the house and the senate to either sustain the objections or override them. BOTH houses must agree in the objections or the original count will stand.
Where is that procedure located in the constitution?
The 12th amendment gives exactly zero power of the members of the senate to object to anything. The written objection from rep and senators AND the two hour debate language is found in the electoral count act. The 12th amendment gives the dispute resolution power to house of reps by state delegation where the president of senate cannot count a majority for any party.
Those are two conflicting procedures. Why would the simple majority-passed piece of legislation (electoral count act ) dictate the procedure rather than the constitution?
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President opens the electoral certificates in his capacity as President of the Senate. However, the Act constrains the Vice President's role in the count.[2][6] Both houses can overrule the Vice President's decision to include or exclude votes and, under the Act, even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the Vice President, breaks the tie. On many occasions, the Vice President has had the duty of finalizing his party's — or his own — defeat. Richard Nixon, Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Joe Biden all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[11][12]
Nixon graciously made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him,[13] while Gore rejected many challenges to the disputed votes from Florida, [14] and in 1968, Hubert Humphrey recused himself from the count.[1
Yes all of that is correct. My question is why would pence follow the act and not the constitution?