TX GOP Lawmaker seeks to give VP Pence ‘Exclusive Authority’ to Overturn FRAUDULENT Election

[dude58677]

You're living in another universe.

If Pence tried to have the Senate vote on slates of electors that were different than the ones the states certified, it would end his political career. The Republican Party would disavow him. And the handful of diehard Trumpers who would respect him for it wouldn't be enough people to deliver the Republican nomination to him over the objections of the other 90% of Republicans who would be utterly embarrassed by his having done that.

You’re living in another universe. Donald Trump has most of his base intact.

[dude58677]

Big deal. You mean if I and and 10 others went on a tour of the AZ capitol and while there voted for someone other than Trump or Biden we somehow became electors? AZ law provides that the winner of the popular vote in the state determines who the official electors are. That means that the GOP's slate has no legal standing, and they are no more a "competing slate" than my group of 11 would be. They're merely posturing politicians.

Big deal. Fraudulent popular votes with a politician approved by a biased person suddenly becomes a slate of elector?

[Invisible Man]

You’re living in another universe. Donald Trump has most of his base intact.

Sure. But his base is a small percentage of the electorate. Most of the people who voted for him aren't his base. And being in his base doesn't entail wanting to pursue the scheme you're talking about.

[Invisible Man]

Big deal. Fraudulent popular votes with a politician approved by a biased person suddenly becomes a slate of elector?

If that's the slate of electors that is chosen in accordance with the procedures established by the state legislature, then yes.

[Sonny Tufts]

They correctly state


Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act replaces the procedures set forth in the Twelfth Amendment with a different and inconsistent set of decision making and dispute resolution procedures.

As detailed above, these provisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional insofar as they require Defendant: (1) to count the electoral votes for a State that have been appointed in violation of the Electors Clause; (2) limits or eliminates his exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and (3) replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure which provides for the House of Representatives to choose the President under a procedure where“the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote” –with an entirely different procedure in which the House and Senate each separately “decide” which slate is to be counted, and in the event of a disagreement, then only “the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State ... shall be counted.” 3 U.S.C. § 15.

Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act also violates the Electors Clause by usurping the exclusive and plenary authority of State Legislatures to determine the manner of appointing Presidential Electors and gives that authority instead to the State’s Executive."


Now explain the reason that you believe that a statute trumps a Constitutional Amendment..

Easy. The Twelfth Amendment doesn't contain the dispute resolution procedure you or the attorneys filing the suit claim it does. If you read the article cited elsewhere on this site, Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional, 80 North Carolina Law Rev. 1653 (2002), you will find several problems with the attorneys' theory:

1. The Amendment refers to the "President of the Senate", but this doesn't mean that person is the presiding officer. Kesavan concludes, "Nevertheless, the better reading of the Electoral College Clauses, when read in light of the Senate Impeachment Clause and of conflict-of-interest principles generally, is that the Vice President, the President of the Senate, shall not be the presiding officer of the electoral count. The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional for this reason alone."

2. The Amendment says the President of the Senate opens the certificates, but that doesn't mean he counts them. Kesavan concludes, "When read in light of the conflict-of-interest principle of the Senate Impeachment Clause, the better answer (again, but by no means an unassailable one) is that the counting function of the Electoral College Clauses is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, not the President of the Senate....The best interpretation as a matter of text and the better interpretation as a matter of history is that the counting function is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives."

3. Assuming that the counting is to be done by both houses, how is the vote to be done? Kesavan concludes it's done by both houses acting as a unicameral body, with votes taken on a per capita basis.

The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't follow that the Vice President has the authority you think he has. I've previously pointed out the conflict-of-interest problem and the problem of a political party's perpetuating itself by simply having its Vice President throw out any electoral votes for the opposing party's candidates. Such absurd results argue against your view of the VP's authority.

Trump tried to get the courts to accept his phony election fraud claims and failed miserably. He tried to persuade state legislatures in the battleground states to change the rules for appointing electors after the fact and failed miserably. The Attorney General of Texas filed a hypocritical petition in the Supreme Court and failed miserably. Now another political hack from Texas files another lawsuit in a pathetic attempt to allow Mike Pence to pull off a coup to keep the Narcissist-in-Chief in office. It too will fail miserably.

Finally, Kesavan has the perfect description of any certificates sent to the President of the Senate by losing GOP electors: "The authentic electoral certificate (if any) is one from the state; the others, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, are merely legally equivalent to Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes entries transmitted to the seat of government by non-states."

[dude58677]

If that's the slate of electors that is chosen in accordance with the procedures established by the state legislature, then yes.

Smugs, most Republicans support him. Fox News ratings wouldn’t have gone down after they called Joe Biden the “winner.”

And no, cheating is not the intent of the legislatures who wrote that law.

Finally Smugs, why are you even here? Why are you here arguing endlessly? What are you getting out of it given that you don’t like Donald Trump, Ron, or Rand?

[Invisible Man]

Finally Smugs, why are you even here? Why are you here arguing endlessly? What are you getting out of it given that you don’t like Donald Trump, Ron, or Rand?

Where do you get the idea that I don't like Ron and Rand? I do. I was a big activist and donor for their campaigns from 2008-2016.

Like Ron Paul, I am not a Trump supporter. But I don't see how that's relevant here anyway, since I've said nothing about Trump being good or bad. I've only made objective claims about what is and isn't likely to happen.

[dude58677]

Easy. The Twelfth Amendment doesn't contain the dispute resolution procedure you or the attorneys filing the suit claim it does. If you read the article cited elsewhere on this site, Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional, 80 North Carolina Law Rev. 1653 (2002), you will find several problems with the attorneys' theory:

1. The Amendment refers to the "President of the Senate", but this doesn't mean that person is the presiding officer. Kesavan concludes, "Nevertheless, the better reading of the Electoral College Clauses, when read in light of the Senate Impeachment Clause and of conflict-of-interest principles generally, is that the Vice President, the President of the Senate, shall not be the presiding officer of the electoral count. The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional for this reason alone."

2. The Amendment says the President of the Senate opens the certificates, but that doesn't mean he counts them. Kesavan concludes, "When read in light of the conflict-of-interest principle of the Senate Impeachment Clause, the better answer (again, but by no means an unassailable one) is that the counting function of the Electoral College Clauses is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, not the President of the Senate....The best interpretation as a matter of text and the better interpretation as a matter of history is that the counting function is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives."

3. Assuming that the counting is to be done by both houses, how is the vote to be done? Kesavan concludes it's done by both houses acting as a unicameral body, with votes taken on a per capita basis.

The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't follow that the Vice President has the authority you think he has. I've previously pointed out the conflict-of-interest problem and the problem of a political party's perpetuating itself by simply having its Vice President throw out any electoral votes for the opposing party's candidates. Such absurd results argue against your view of the VP's authority.

Trump tried to get the courts to accept his phony election fraud claims and failed miserably. He tried to persuade state legislatures in the battleground states to change the rules for appointing electors after the fact and failed miserably. The Attorney General of Texas filed a hypocritical petition in the Supreme Court and failed miserably. Now another political hack from Texas files another lawsuit in a pathetic attempt to allow Mike Pence to pull off a coup to keep the Narcissist-in-Chief in office. It too will fail miserably.

Finally, Kesavan has the perfect description of any certificates sent to the President of the Senate by losing GOP electors: "The authentic electoral certificate (if any) is one from the state; the others, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, are merely legally equivalent to Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes entries transmitted to the seat of government by non-states."

You just don’t like the fact that the Republicans control the House delegations. If they were liberal you would go out of your way to argue that there is no conflict of interest. Politics is power and it is who controls the ball. You don’t like the Republicans controlling the House Delegations then you try to get more Democrats in the House Delegations. No need to be here whining and arguing 24/7 on Ronpaulforums!

[dude58677]

Easy. The Twelfth Amendment doesn't contain the dispute resolution procedure you or the attorneys filing the suit claim it does. If you read the article cited elsewhere on this site, Vasan Kesavan, Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional, 80 North Carolina Law Rev. 1653 (2002), you will find several problems with the attorneys' theory:

1. The Amendment refers to the "President of the Senate", but this doesn't mean that person is the presiding officer. Kesavan concludes, "Nevertheless, the better reading of the Electoral College Clauses, when read in light of the Senate Impeachment Clause and of conflict-of-interest principles generally, is that the Vice President, the President of the Senate, shall not be the presiding officer of the electoral count. The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional for this reason alone."

2. The Amendment says the President of the Senate opens the certificates, but that doesn't mean he counts them. Kesavan concludes, "When read in light of the conflict-of-interest principle of the Senate Impeachment Clause, the better answer (again, but by no means an unassailable one) is that the counting function of the Electoral College Clauses is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, not the President of the Senate....The best interpretation as a matter of text and the better interpretation as a matter of history is that the counting function is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives."

3. Assuming that the counting is to be done by both houses, how is the vote to be done? Kesavan concludes it's done by both houses acting as a unicameral body, with votes taken on a per capita basis.

The Electoral Count Act may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't follow that the Vice President has the authority you think he has. I've previously pointed out the conflict-of-interest problem and the problem of a political party's perpetuating itself by simply having its Vice President throw out any electoral votes for the opposing party's candidates. Such absurd results argue against your view of the VP's authority.

Trump tried to get the courts to accept his phony election fraud claims and failed miserably. He tried to persuade state legislatures in the battleground states to change the rules for appointing electors after the fact and failed miserably. The Attorney General of Texas filed a hypocritical petition in the Supreme Court and failed miserably. Now another political hack from Texas files another lawsuit in a pathetic attempt to allow Mike Pence to pull off a coup to keep the Narcissist-in-Chief in office. It too will fail miserably.

Finally, Kesavan has the perfect description of any certificates sent to the President of the Senate by losing GOP electors: "The authentic electoral certificate (if any) is one from the state; the others, insofar as the Constitution is concerned, are merely legally equivalent to Publishers Clearinghouse sweepstakes entries transmitted to the seat of government by non-states."

Where do you get the idea that I don't like Ron and Rand? I do. I was a big activist and donor for their campaigns from 2008-2016.

Like Ron Paul, I am not a Trump supporter. But I don't see how that's relevant here anyway, since I've said nothing about Trump being good or bad. I've only made objective claims about what is and isn't likely to happen.

Very well but Rand Paul will never become President in 2024 or ever till this fraud is dealt with. You can’t learn how to play ice hockey if you can’t skate first.

[familydog]

The point of the lawsuit?
There are 70 million people who believe the election was fraudulent.
Voters in deep red districts are HAMMERING their representatives.
Any rep in these areas who wishes to be re-elected has to pander to this base.
Trump will be gone, but Trumpism ain't going away anytime soon, folks.

Exactly.

The sole reason for this lawsuit is to highlight the ambiguity of the 12th Amendment and force Pence to choose sides. Is he MAGA or is he Establishment? Overturning a fraudulent and unconstitutional election is not the real reason for this lawsuit.

[dude58677]

Exactly.

The sole reason for this lawsuit is to highlight the ambiguity of the 12th Amendment and force Pence to choose sides. Is he MAGA or is he Establishment? Overturning a fraudulent and unconstitutional election is not the real reason for this lawsuit.

This 1000+

[enhanced_deficit]

So to get this straight, Mike Pence would betray the Trump base making him unpopular with Republicans and then face Donald Trump in 2024 for the nomination? I don’t think so.


More like he would choose Trump electors, finish out his second term as VP and run in 2024 with Donald Trump and his base support.

EM.

Well yes, Pence would join discredited CZ movement's discredited-posterboy slash Trump-backstabber Netanyahu and will betray Trump.

Agree with this >

Prepare for the great backstab!

[dude58677]

EM.

Well yes, Pence would join discredited CZ movement's discredited posterboy Netanyahu and betray Trump.

Agree with this >

But why would he give up his VP spot? That makes no sense.

[enhanced_deficit]

But why would he give up his VP spot? That makes no sense.

Because he seems to understand his place in money supply food chain and knows that it's not happening just because bunch of pesky "we the people" voters are upset.
Why would he completely ruin his 2024 chances?
Even Trump very likely knows this and probably just wants to cause some wrecking on his way out while raising some cash in the process to help soften the blow he received from deep state neecons.

[Invisible Man]

Exactly.

The sole reason for this lawsuit is to highlight the ambiguity of the 12th Amendment and force Pence to choose sides. Is he MAGA or is he Establishment? Overturning a fraudulent and unconstitutional election is not the real reason for this lawsuit.

I still don't get how this lawsuit contributes anything to that.

Even without the lawsuit, wouldn't Pence already have to choose sides?

Isn't that what the Trumpers have spent the past couple weeks insisting? And now the same ones are saying that if it weren't for this lawsuit, the choice wouldn't have been put to Pence after all.

[Invisible Man]

But why would he give up his VP spot? That makes no sense.

Giving up his VP spot is already guaranteed. There is no possible route he can go that includes him remaining on as VP next term. His only choice is whether he wants to lose gracefully and still be the front runner for the GOP nomination in 2024, or go down kicking and screaming and lose any hope of that.

[A Son of Liberty]

What are you getting out of it given that you don’t like Donald Trump, Ron, or Rand?

[familydog]

Even without the lawsuit, wouldn't Pence already have to choose sides?

Certainly. However, very few people are aware of the 12th Amendment. This lawsuit draws attention to the fact that the sitting Vice President plays a role in the electors. Whatever that role is happens to be irrelevant. At this point, everything Trump supporters and the MAGA crowd does is about drawing battle lines. You are either with them or you are the enemy. Pence has been largely in the background for the last four years. Now is the time for him to choose whether he has an electoral future or not.

[Sonny Tufts]

You just don’t like the fact that the Republicans control the House delegations. If they were liberal you would go out of your way to argue that there is no conflict of interest. Politics is power and it is who controls the ball. You don’t like the Republicans controlling the House Delegations then you try to get more Democrats in the House Delegations. No need to be here whining and arguing 24/7 on Ronpaulforums!

The House delegations get to vote only if it's first determined that no one got a majority of the electoral votes. But there's absolutely nothing in the 12th Amendment or anywhere else that says the delegations get to vote on whether someone got a majority. That is the hurdle you and the other Trump lemmings can't get over. And if you say you'd feel the same way if a Democrat Vice President were claiming that he had the right to throw out all Republican electoral votes in order to keep a Dem President in office, you're a liar.

[dude58677]

The House delegations get to vote only if it's first determined that no one got a majority of the electoral votes. But there's absolutely nothing in the 12th Amendment or anywhere else that says the delegations get to vote on whether someone got a majority. That is the hurdle you and the other Trump lemmings can't get over. And if you say you'd feel the same way if a Democrat Vice President were claiming that he had the right to throw out all Republican electoral votes in order to keep a Dem President in office, you're a liar.

This is a straw man fallacy which you do repeatedly. I didn’t say that the House Delegations choose the majority. I am fully aware that there needs to be no majority before they can vote but I did say that there being a Republican VP and a Republican House Delegation is what you are whining about.

I wouldn’t be whining about the Dem VP picking their own slate of electors but I would be whining about being out of power esp if the Dems also controlled the House Delegations.

[Sonny Tufts]

I didn’t say that the House Delegations choose the majority. I am fully aware that there needs to be no majority before they can vote but I did say that there being a Republican VP and a Republican House Delegation is what you are whining about.

I'm not whining about the GOP House delegations for one simple reason: they'll never get to vote. And I'm not whining about Pence. He won't get to vote either.

I'll tell you when you would have been whining and screaming that something illegal has happened: it's January 6, 2017. Vice President Joe Biden throws out enough electors' votes for Trump such that the new President is Hillary Clinton.

[dude58677]

I'm not whining about the GOP House delegations for one simple reason: they'll never get to vote. And I'm not whining about Pence. He won't get to vote either.

I'll tell you when you would have been whining and screaming that something illegal has happened: it's January 6, 2017. Vice President Joe Biden throws out enough electors' votes for Trump such that the new President is Hillary Clinton.

LOL, you are here whining otherwise you wouldn’t be here debating this endlessly!

[RJ Liberty]

LOL, you are here whining otherwise you wouldn’t be here debating this endlessly!

Sonny Tufts has seven posts in this thread. You have fourteen.

[dude58677]

Sonny Tufts has seven posts in this thread. You have fourteen.

LOL, he keeps repeating the same lame arguments over again and ignoring everything I type.

He’s ranting and raving!

[Anti Globalist]

Something tells me Pence will end up betraying Trump.

[dude58677]

If Mike Pence doesn’t do this then he deserves to lose and the Democrats only win the same way a father lets their child win at checkers because they will throw the pieces across the room! LMAO!

[Contumacious]

Are you saying that unless this suit is won, Pence will not have the authority to do that?

I did not say that.

The following Constitutional Attorneys have declared that VP Pence has the EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY to prevent the Demo Rats from stealing the election :


1- Preparing for a dispute election, 51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 309, 325 (2019)

2- Nobody For President, 16 J.L. & Pol 699 (2000)

3- Vasan Kesavan, “Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?” 80 NC L. Rev. 2001



So please let your idol know that he ought to dissolve his cabinet, no more transition funds and no more DOD briefs




Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha




.

[Invisible Man]

I did not say that

If you're not saying that, then we're right back to the question from my previous post that you were supposedly answering:
What is the point of this lawsuit? Isn't it your position that Pence is already both authorized to do what this suit is suing for, and is already going to do exactly that anyway?

[Invisible Man]

Something tells me Pence will end up betraying Trump.

What would constitute not betraying Trump in your mind?

Do you think Pence is supposed to count slates of electors other than the ones the states certified?

[Sonny Tufts]

I did not say that.

The following Constitutional Attorneys have declared that VP Pence has the EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY to prevent the Demo Rats from stealing the election :


1- Preparing for a dispute election, 51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 309, 325 (2019)

2- Nobody For Presiden, 16 J.L. & Pol 699 (2000)

3- Vasan Kesavan, “Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?” 80 NC L. Rev. 2001

It's obvious you've never read these articles (I'm not surprised one bit). In the first article Professor Foley notes the argument that Pence has such authority as well as the counterargument that he doesn't. Foley doesn't come down one way or the other on the issue.

In the second article Professor Harrison notes the conflicting interpretations of the 12th Amendment in the context of dispute resolution and concludes, "neither the written Constitution nor unwritten practice provides a rule under which to decide disputed presidential elections."

As I have previously pointed out, Kesavan takes the position that not only does the Vice President have no vote in determining disputes, he's not even the presiding officer.

You're 0 for 3, with 3 K's. You're benched.