TL;DR: Republicans can object every single Electoral vote slate, each time taking hours of debate in Congress. If this takes more than five days, the counting must stop. At that point, Biden may not have reached 270 yet, so it would go to a contingent election in which Republicans have the advantage
So, you definitely could be right, but I think that sentence could mean two things:
-
All certificates of the electoral votes shall be opened, presented, and acted upon. The order will be alphabetical.
-
The order in which the certificates shall be opened, presented, and acted upon is alphabetical.
If number 1, you are right. If 2, that does not preclude the President of the Senate from choosing not to open some.
Either way, I am curious, if Pence chose not to open some, what recourse Congress would have. Maybe they would sue
Actually, both you and the article are correct. From Wikipedia: "When the electoral ballots were opened and counted on February 11, 1801, it turned out that the certificate of election from Georgia was defective: while it was clear that the electors had cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr, the certificate did not take the constitutionally mandated form of a 'List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each'. Vice President Jefferson, who was counting the votes in his role as President of the Senate, immediately counted the votes from Georgia as votes for Jefferson and Burr, and no objections were raised."
HOWEVER, after he counted all those voted, he and Burr were tied (at that point, first place was President and second place was Vice President). So, there was a contingent election to decide the President after that, with Jefferson tying Burr for the first thirty-five times until Hamilton convinced some Federalists to switch their votes to Jefferson.
TL;DR: The article is correct that the President of the Senate chooses which votes to cast. Jefferson chose to open and count Georgia's certificate, but that left a tie between him and Burr, leading to a contingent election.
Actually, both you and the article are correct. From Wikipedia: "When the electoral ballots were opened and counted on February 11, 1801, it turned out that the certificate of election from Georgia was defective: while it was clear that the electors had cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr, the certificate did not take the constitutionally mandated form of a 'List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each'. Vice President Jefferson, who was counting the votes in his role as President of the Senate, immediately counted the votes from Georgia as votes for Jefferson and Burr, and no objections were raised."
HOWEVER, after he counted all those voted, he and Burr were tied (at that point, first place was President and second place was Vice President). So, there was a contingent election to decide the President after that, with Jefferson tying Burr for the first thirty-five times until Hamilton convinced some Federalists to switch their votes to Jefferson.
TL;DR: The article is correct that the President of the Senate chooses which votes to cast. Jefferson chose to open and count Georgia's certificate, but that left a tie between him and Burr, leading to a contingent election.
If you call it something cool, like Trump Law, I'm totally for it. Just saying.
I believe that the President can simply nominate any of them to be Chief Justice, but it has to be approved by the Senate, so it's easier to just make the newly appointed justice Chief Justice so that there is just one hearing instead of two
The only time I really ever use it is if I want to download something from a site I've never heard of and want to make sure it won't give me a virus.
But, if a site gets bad enough reviews, and somebody with the browser extension tries to visit it, it will pop up with a warning that the site may be malicious. So, we don't want that
It's not really that, either, but we know what you mean