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:
No, there isn't always a choice. And there wasn't in this case. Assuming for a moment that he did have a choice, that would mean the founders of our democracy put in place a mechanism for a single individual (who may well have a stake in the outcome of the election) to decide to invalidate the will of the people who voted. Not likely and not logical. Had Pence done so, then this paragraph could just as equally be applied to the Trump administration:
Fun fact, Jefferson single handedly put himself into office in 1800 by counting the dubious certificate from GA. He of course wasn't going to reject it and all those votes for himself.... had he rejected it, or it been more forcibly objected to, or challenged at the court, there'd have been a contingent election in the House between Adams and Jefferson because neither would have a majority. Thing is, Adams had set the precedent in the prior election by counting the RI certificate even though there were some questions about it (wouldn't have made a difference in the win for Adams, and the questions over the certificate were not at the same level as the GA certificate in 1800).
The Framers never intended the VP to have any supposed unilateral exclusive, supreme power to reject or not accept Electoral certificates. But the problem is that the Constitution did not explicitly spell out a process for what would happen if Electoral appointments or votes were disputed... or perhaps they did... oh yes, they certainly did... Judicial matters are up to the courts, and cases like this belong to SCOTUS which has original jurisdiction. Hence, why even despite the ECA in the aftermath if 1876, SCOTUS has ruled many times in Electoral matters.
Yes, thank you! Appreciate the historical details and helpful info.