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?
(copypaste from my last reply since you raised the exact same concern.) And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if Pence acts, and his rationale for not acting if he declines to do so. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if he acts. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
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.
1876 was an illegal and off the books decision though. They didn't follow any constitutional procedure, this is all Calvinball now.
That's my point.
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?
(copypaste from my last reply since you raised the exact same concern.) And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if Pence acts, and his rationale for not acting if he declines to do so. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.
And that's the point that will be argued endlessly if he acts. He's within his rights to resolve the dispute in this manner in the strict sense of it. That will never satisfy our opponents because, in this case, that dispute happens to determine the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the rule is the rule, and there is no rigid rule I'm aware of that requires him to recuse himself, however much the left may try to say he must.