Now Missouri

[BlindBoo]

Again, the stupid you don't know is you!!!

Objecting To Electoral Votes In Congress Recalls Bitter Moments In History

Vice President Pence is far from being the first vice president caught in an awkward position when presiding over the counting of electoral votes and being obligated to announce his own defeat.

www.npr.org

Since as far back as 1796, when John Adams was vice president, the job of declaring the winner of the presidential election has been at least potentially problematic. Because when Adams was opening the envelopes that year, the winner was himself. There had been some controversy over the paperwork from Vermont, but Adams' main rival, Thomas Jefferson, said he did not wish to make a fuss over the "form" of the vote when the "substance" was clear.

Nothing in that article supports the idea that the VP as President of the Senate has any power to decide to throw out any slate of electors during the Jan 6th counting of the EC votes like Benedict Donald was demanding Pence do.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress can write additional laws to aid in the enforcement. But it's not required. Enforcement can begin on day one.

I think the first line of that is the issue where SCOTUS hangs its hat, but I have no more expertise than any other poster.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nothing in that article supports the idea that the VP as President of the Senate has any power to decide to throw out any slate of electors during the Jan 6th counting of the EC votes like Benedict Donald was demanding Pence do.

It was also enshrined in legislature right after to that effect.

 

[jc456]

Nothing in that article supports the idea that the VP as President of the Senate has any power to decide to throw out any slate of electors during the Jan 6th counting of the EC votes like Benedict Donald was demanding Pence do.

sure it does, it claims it to be awkward!!!! what other reason would they make such a statement. It isn't against the law what trump asked Pence to do. You can't prove it was, and again, the devil is always in the details and you mostly never use them.

 

[jc456]

It was also enshrined in legislature right after to that effect.

It's why both parties have electoral voters. Any one can challenge the certification.

 

[Care4all]

Minor policy difference? Like record illegal aliens pouring over the border, record sex trafficking, record fentanyl and other illicit drugs and other outcomes of not enforcing federal laws to thwart illegal immigration? Putting Harris in charge of the illegal immigration?

Yes .. just minor .

If it were unconstitutional, like an insurrection, then the republicans would bring Biden to court in a suit, and the Republicans would win, by the SC ruling it unconstitutional.

That has not been done.

So, it is simply a policy difference.

 

[BlindBoo]

was trump part of the thirty sixth or thirty seventh congress? ahahahahahaahahahahaaha, you give me the accurate statement and have no fking clue what it means? wow, you are one obtuse dumbass.

He was Commander in Chief, the Highest office in the military, a position not effected by the Amnesty act you cited.

 

[dudmuck]

If Trump is so clearly guilty, why are Democrats so against taking it to court and proving it? Because they made up their standard, which is proven by that they demand Biden NOT be held to it

Its Trump's tactic to delay.
Democrats have no influence over the judicial system, as far as trump's legal woes go.

 

[jc456]

He was Commander in Chief, the Highest office in the military, a position not effected by the Amnesty act you cited.

Didn't see that as an option in the statement you posted. Reread it.

 

[kaz]

Trials are not necessary to get "due process". As in this case, it will pass through many courts, high and low, ending up in the USSC. Hence why due process can be served both before or after an action is taken.
Only in cases where an action can't be "reversed" is due process to be completed before carrying out the decision.

It's not innocent until proven guilty OR due process, BOTH are in the Constitution, magot.

Look how far you're going to prove my point you're standards are pure double, lying sack of Communist racist piece of shit

 

[jc456]

Trials are not necessary to get "due process". As in this case, it will pass through many courts, high and low, ending up in the USSC. Hence why due process can be served both before or after an action is taken.
Only in cases where an action can't be "reversed" is due process to be completed before carrying out the decision.

well if you knew due process, you already know that trump was tried and demofks lost the impeachment. Trump was acquitted.

 

[kaz]

So when this dumbass is caught behaving badly, he just doubles down on the BigLie.

That's right. He's still actually claiming that not being allowed to run for president is a criminal prosecution.

Yes, even Donald J. Trump has Constitutional rights. Even TRUMP! Biden, your neighbor who steals your mail, the man who serves you burgers through the drive through, everyone! Can you believe it? You don't do you? Be honest, magot. You're a hypocrite, a complete and utter piece of Communist crap

 

[kaz]

Its Trump's tactic to delay.
Democrats have no influence over the judicial system, as far as trump's legal woes go.

From the guy who supports that FOUR indictments waited the exact same 2 1/2 years to go to court during the election. And that terrible Trump is delaying!

You people are hypocrites with double standards who would be losing it if it were happening to your boy the pedophile who can't stand up on his own you're voting for, magot

 

[jc456]

If it were unconstitutional, like an insurrection, then the republicans would bring Biden to court in a suit, and the Republicans would win, by the SC ruling it unconstitutional.

That has not been done.

So, it is simply a policy difference.

no declaration of an insurrection!!!! what now? You can use the big word until you wipe your ass for the day, it still was never officially charged as anything close to an insurrection. you stand wrong as always.

 

[postman]

sure it does, it claims it to be awkward!!!! what other reason would they make such a statement. It isn't against the law what trump asked Pence to do. You can't prove it was, and again, the devil is always in the details and you mostly never use them.

Because the constitution clearly gives to congress, through their lawmaking of the electoral count act, that any controversy with the electoral vote is to be decided by the agreement of both houses of congress.

 

[BlindBoo]

sure it does, it claims it to be awkward!!!!

The process, not the VP's role as master of Ceremony. He has no constitutional authority to unilaterally throw out certified, valid states election results.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, even Donald J. Trump has Constitutional rights. Even TRUMP. Can you believe it? You don't do you? Be honest, magot. You're a hypocrite, a complete and utter piece of Communist crap

Look at him run!

He can't address the simple fact that being barred from running for president is not a criminal prosecution.

And his tears of loserdom ... mmmm, so delicious.

Kaz, you're not the most cowardly Trump cult loser here ... oh wait, maybe you are.

On the bright side, by pissing yourself and crying uncontrollably, you've earn big brownie points with your masters. By Trump cult standards, anyone who doesn't have soiled britches is assumed to be a dirty liberal.

 

[Care4all]

It was and still is a Civil War Amendment not intended for 150 years later

The problem is the amendment writers and signers if this section in the amendment, never said it was just for The Civil War insurrection or rebellion participants, and Congress never clarified that section 3, with legislation since it was written....

 

[postman]

It's not innocent until proven guilty OR due process, BOTH are in the Constitution, magot.

Innocent until proven guilty is NOT in the Constitution. It's a common law legal principle. Like no man can sit in judgement of his own case.

 

[Lesh]

Now I'm confused. When people say things is it only a joke if it is said by Democrats but it's not a joke if said by Republicans?

Just pointing out your hypocrisy… again