This is incorrect. There was no competing slate of electors during Jefferson's 1800 election. What happened was GA's certificate of electors was found to be somewhat deficient. Jefferson counted them anyway - without any objection from Congress.
In the case of Nixon, the Governor certified both Republican and Democratic electors. First, the Republican slate. After a court-mandated recount found that Kennedy won, the Governor certified the Democratic electors. Nixon, in fact, counted certified electoral votes. If he did count the Republican votes, Congress has the right to object to it.
Pence has no such power. Nowhere in the 12th amendment states that he can disregard any state's electors.
The wording of the law is to count, and count he must. If the votes are there, he should count them.
Note that the constitution says "shall" in describing the actions of the VP in the 12th amendment. This wording indicates that the function is ministerial. He must count.
I'm all for DJT winning this election, but we should not buy in to misinformation, or we'll just be disappointed.
Pence is correct. Rep. Gohmert needs to sue Congress because VP's hands are tied due to the Electoral Count Act.
I agree about the justice system being a laughing stock. But legally, Texas wanted to invoke the original jurisdiction, and they didn't complete the requirements to be able to do so. If the justices are really compromised, they can hide behind the banner of legality. Sad, really.
No state has officially sent dual electors. Also, 12th amendment does not give VP power to disregard electors.
1800 had no dueling slate of electors. There was no objection when Jefferson counted the Georgia slate. The problem was that it was deficient in form.
In 1877, Congress had to make a deal, the VP did was not able to "throw out" votes. There was a constitutional crisis, the resulting compromise was the electoral count act.
In 1960, Nixon selected the electors without objection.
The 12th amendment does not have any provision that states the VP can discard the electors from any state. To resolve it, Congress enacted the ECA. The ECA will be adopted as a joint resolution come Jan. 6.
I support DJT, but we should stop with the misinformation.
After McConnel is convinced to dispute the electors, the House must also vote with the Senate. There is very little chance of this happening.
It was not a committee report. It was a report made by the chairman alone.
This Report by the Subcommittee Chair has not been formally approved by the Subcommittee or the standing Judiciary Committee.It is submitted for informational purposes to be a part of the record at the request of the Judiciary Chair.It is a summary of testimony given in person and by affidavit.For more information, please refer to the video record of the hearing and the affidavits submitted.
Thanks man, appreciate it.
I'm sorry fren. The 12th amendment does not provide Pence with the power to choose between dueling electors. There is only one law which lays out a procedure for what to do with dueling electors - The Electoral Count Act of 1887.
We need to somehow convince some of the House democrats who won in tight races to vote for Trump electors. And then maybe 2-3 Senate democrats in swing states to have the Senate vote for Trump as well.
I'm slowly redpilling the wife first. She seems to be open-minded.
SCOTUS could have heard the case if they wanted to, that is correct.
All I'm saying is that in order to legally invoke SCOTUS' original jurisdiction, there are requirements that need to be fulfilled - and TX was not able to do so.
In that case, Texas must demonstrate that only Texas has standing and no other state. That's the other requirement for invoking the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. And I think it's difficult to convince the court. Not impossible, but difficult.
Sorry man, i'm just recently redpilled. I have been cucked for most of my life. I'm working on it though.
The Insurrection Act cannot be invoked to arrest House or Senate members. DJT can only invoke the powers in the Insurrection act in case of rebellion, insurrection, or civil disorders that the states themselves cannot handle.
You could say that. Even my kids are becoming little commies. I have to turn around somehow.
That is true. But the same could be argued for California wanting to sue Indiana for their strict voter ID laws. If the SC allowed this case, there would be a plethora of such cases in the future.
Also, the way Texas filed the case was by invoking the SC's original jurisdiction. Meaning only Texas must have standing. This isn't the case.
Our best hope is for the contested state's AGs and Republican-led legislatures to file cases.
Nope. I saw the action. But, for GA's competing slate of electors to be official, it needs to have a vote. With a Republican majority, there should be no problem for it to pass. However, they can't vote without there being a session.
That was a difficult one to support. Texas can't really say it has standing. Our best hopes would have been AGs from MI, WI, GA, etc. to file the cases.
Also, Texas went to the SC directly, invoking original jurisdiction. It can't. Because it can't demonstrate that it has unique interest. This means it must demonstrate that only Texas can file the case.
It was a good show of support though, for all the AGs and states involved.
Maybe some Democrats in swing districts can be convinced and be redpilled. But it's a steep hill to climb.
You're partially correct. I am a basement dweller.
That is why the state legislatures should hurry up and send their own certifications for Trump electors. Not from a committee, not from a lone or group of legislators. It must be a majority of the legislators, speaking from their office.
For this to happen, there needs to be special sessions. This hasn't happened yet. Let's hope it does.
If I study and teach the law, doesn't mean I have to like it.
I think the Supreme Court should have heard the case so as to give a clear message and bring down judgement for clarity.
As for standing, I am not sure it would be wise to allow states to sue other states for how they conduct their business. For example, what would stop California for suing Texas over gun laws?
Even if Texas did have standing, there is also a requirement that only Texas can bring up the case in order to invoke the SC's original jurisdiction. The fact that DJT was intervening in the case makes this a difficult one to argue.
Personally, I believe the cases with the best chances of getting a hearing are the ones filed by the Trump campaign. They have unquestionable standing.
I'm not arguing which slate of electors is constitutional or not. I'm saying that no state body has sent dual electors. Also, that's besides the point. Pence has to open and count ALL papers purporting to be electors. That is all his job is. He has no power to reject them. No text in the constitution grants him such power.