If Pence picks the Republican electors as legitimate, then all Democrats can do is vote to reject them. But it also means they can't accept alternate electors. They can only vote to reject or accept. If they vote to reject, then there's a stalemate that has to be sorted out.
alternate slates in this case have been put forward by tiny minorities of each state's respective legislatures. A dozen here and there from states with hundreds of seats in their House and Senate.
They have next to no legitimacy.
If Pence wants to stand up and change history here, he needs to just reject the disputed states wholesale and trigger a contingency vote.
The constitution grants the authority to the legislatures. A tiny minority of the legislature is more legit than a slate certified by a governor or sos
But there haven’t been any special sessions, so technically, the alternate slates haven’t been certified. Although, Rudy says that the legislatures don’t need to be in session at all for them to certify.
The way I understand it is that there are 2 legal interpretations. They (POTUS/Pence) have seem to concluded on the interpretation that he certainly does have the power. Maybe someone else can chime in if I am wrong.
It's all derived from "the votes shall then be counted", a passive voice phrase that doesn't really tell you much about what the process is supposed to look like. There's also zero precedent for a VP to exercise any discretion over the vote count over the objections of Congress.
I think the play is to just do it anyway and see if the resulting chaos works out somehow.
Not true.
Thomas Jefferson did it and became president because of that (He was VP at the time and counting his own votes).
Nixon did not count his own certified elector votes from Hawaii in 1960 and instead chose JFK's non-certified votes. Certification didn't matter at all. If it had, then Nixon would have been required to count the votes for himself.
Jefferson didn’t cast aside any electors in 1800. It was a tie, with no one having a majority of electoral votes so it went to the House. The House held 35 ballots and were tied between Jefferson and Burr. Hamilton intervened and convinced Federalists to back Jefferson and lots of people changed to Jefferson or Abstained and Jefferson won. Jefferson didn’t do any ballot picking or choosing in the election of 1800. It WAS controversial though.
There IS precedent, as the other commenter said. As the head of the Senate, it's squarely in his duties to resolve disputes at that level, if he's willing to take the heat.
He might be the person to resolve a disagreement between the House and the Senate if they're split. Power to unilaterally elect himself and POTUS is a massive stretch.
I still say they really have nothing to lose by trying anyway. If SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this, who's going to say what is or isn't legal?
DAMN RIGHT HE DOES
I've been reading about it for weeks now and listening to podcasts, watching videos, etc. Still have no idea how this works.
Dan Bongino had the most thorough explanation on his 12/30/20 show "What's Really Going Down on Jan 6th at 1pm?" (Ep 1424)
The episode heavily relies on this Epoch Times piece
He rejects the envelopes unopened, like any mail-in ballot from someone who’s not registered/ didn’t sign the envelope / mailed it late / etc.
Playing devil’s advocate, what’s to stop him from rejecting the ballots from any and every blue state?
I’d be fine with this, by the way. I just want to know if he legally can.
https://bongino.com/ep-1424-whats-really-going-down-on-jan-6-at-1p
This could be explained in 1-2 minutes. He takes 20 minutes.
He is long winded and repeats himself a lot. Gotta fill the time slot I suppose.
Use this link instead if you don't want to have to sign up for emails https://outline.com/7Cx2eB
That's the best description I've found too.
What are the challenges? I'm looking to BTFO my little rigger brother
He just picks the alternate slate for states that have alternate slates of electors sent in.
How does certification by state legislatures relate to this? Does it factor at all?
If Pence picks the Republican electors as legitimate, then all Democrats can do is vote to reject them. But it also means they can't accept alternate electors. They can only vote to reject or accept. If they vote to reject, then there's a stalemate that has to be sorted out.
hope not.
alternate slates in this case have been put forward by tiny minorities of each state's respective legislatures. A dozen here and there from states with hundreds of seats in their House and Senate.
They have next to no legitimacy.
If Pence wants to stand up and change history here, he needs to just reject the disputed states wholesale and trigger a contingency vote.
The constitution grants the authority to the legislatures. A tiny minority of the legislature is more legit than a slate certified by a governor or sos
But there haven’t been any special sessions, so technically, the alternate slates haven’t been certified. Although, Rudy says that the legislatures don’t need to be in session at all for them to certify.
not without congressional approval, and we don't have the votes in the Senate.
The way I understand it is that there are 2 legal interpretations. They (POTUS/Pence) have seem to concluded on the interpretation that he certainly does have the power. Maybe someone else can chime in if I am wrong.
THIS
Oops, no standing.
And that's when the supreme court fucks them
It's all derived from "the votes shall then be counted", a passive voice phrase that doesn't really tell you much about what the process is supposed to look like. There's also zero precedent for a VP to exercise any discretion over the vote count over the objections of Congress.
I think the play is to just do it anyway and see if the resulting chaos works out somehow.
Not true. Thomas Jefferson did it and became president because of that (He was VP at the time and counting his own votes). Nixon did not count his own certified elector votes from Hawaii in 1960 and instead chose JFK's non-certified votes. Certification didn't matter at all. If it had, then Nixon would have been required to count the votes for himself.
As I said:
In both those cases, Congress didn't give a fuck because it was obvious who the votes were for so there were no objections.
In 1876, when there actually was a massive controversy about the electoral votes, the VP didn't do anything.
Jefferson didn’t cast aside any electors in 1800. It was a tie, with no one having a majority of electoral votes so it went to the House. The House held 35 ballots and were tied between Jefferson and Burr. Hamilton intervened and convinced Federalists to back Jefferson and lots of people changed to Jefferson or Abstained and Jefferson won. Jefferson didn’t do any ballot picking or choosing in the election of 1800. It WAS controversial though.
Don’t need precedence. Time to write our own history and free ourselves from the shackles of cuckservativism.
There IS precedent, as the other commenter said. As the head of the Senate, it's squarely in his duties to resolve disputes at that level, if he's willing to take the heat.
He might be the person to resolve a disagreement between the House and the Senate if they're split. Power to unilaterally elect himself and POTUS is a massive stretch.
I still say they really have nothing to lose by trying anyway. If SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this, who's going to say what is or isn't legal?
Other than saying damn right can you see where it says this in the constitution? Im also confused