Lets talk about how Luttig's J6 testimony re Pence plays into the whole plan
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (112)
sorted by:
“Faithfully “ would necessarily include verification of the legitimacy of the votes cast.
Nothing in the Constitution or any law proceeding therefrom compels the VP to knowingly participate in fraud. Especially fraud leading to the overthrow of the Presidency of the United States in a treasonous coup.
Fraud vitiates (cancels the validity of) everything it touches. That includes elections because they're part of everything.
Poor guy has the words 'basically' and 'literally' mixed up.
Absolutely no fat in your statement. Impeccable command of the English language sir. Thank you.
Cheers anon
Words is fun :)
Actually, the CONSTITUTION says no such thing. It neither says the VP presides in a ministerial function only, nor does it say that the VP has the [exclusive] power to contest or reject Electoral certificates, nor "send them back." The problem is that has always been that the Constitution is silent. It's not explicitly clear what power, if any, the VP has as a "judge" of the legitimacy of the purported Electoral certificates. Then again, it's also silent about Congress' authority and doesn't explicitly state what should happen if Electoral appointments or votes, or counting of said votes, are disputed.
The Electoral Count Act attempted to solve this massive problem, which caused a constitutional crisis in 1876 (although, twice prior Electoral vote certificates HAD BEEN REJECTED because the states in question were still in a quasi state of rebellion without legally restored governments). But the ECA isn't even constitutional. The Constitution doesn't explicitly give Congress any authority to make any statutory law to give itself unilateral power to judge on presidential Electoral dispute matters. According to the Constitution, ALL judicial decisions are left to the courts, and in this case SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. This has always been a matter for the courts, for SCOTUS.
You really think this move to provide security for SCOTUS is because of Roe v Wade?? Nope. That's just the first step to prepare for what's eventually coming... SCOTUS will hear the election dispute cases on the basis of merit. And at the very least, will declare the contested states to have 0 electoral votes counted for either Trump or Biden, which means contigent vote in the House. Should have been done over a year ago, but I digress. Better late than never. But by some small chance Patriots truly "have it all", meaning the real, true vote count, and undeniable proof that it was changed, then SCOTUS could absolutely declare Trump the lawful winner.
Judges judge. Not Congress. Not the VP. Judges.
Philology is crucial to understanding the constitution. The propagation of the “living constitution” theory is half the reason we are in this mess in the first place. One has to understand the words as meant in the time they were written to effectively apply meaning after the fact. All that is to say is I agree with your interpretation.
Faithfully =in good faith, meaning he attests to the fact that the votes are legit.
You lost me at basically.