In other words, the Vice President does have the latitude to reject electors under the law as it is written. If Pence’s excuses contained in his infamous letter were correct, there would be no need to change the Electoral Count Act.
Wrong. The ECA renders the VP to a purely ministerial role. That's what Pence said, which was correct. But the CONSTITUTION itself says no such thing. The problem is the Constitution is silent. Neither gives VP explicit power as judge of legitimacy of Electoral certificates, nor does it render VP solely ministerial. It. Is. Silent. Pence was incorrect about VP actions in election history though. Both Adams and Jefferson did make unilateral "judgements" determining certificate legitimacy. There's little dispute about Adams' action in 1796, as the certificate was in the form required by the Constitution. But Jefferson absolutely made himself president in 1800 when he unlawfully counted GA's certificate, despite it being nothing close to the form required by the Constitution. Problem was nobody really challenged his bullshit move. The issue is that the Constitution is unclear as to VP's power or lack of power. Granted, I would contend such power should NOT exclusively lie with one person. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the Framers. The ECA is right in saying that VP is ministerial, however, that's not what the Constitution says, so it should have to be amended to clarify, rather that federal statute.
The real judges of election disputes, should be, and under the words as written by the Constitution, are the JUDGES... SCOTUS, which in theory, is supposed to be the impartial arbiters of the law.
The ECA itself, has no legal grounds under the Constitution. It need be challenged and struck down. The Constitution needs to be amended, to clarify that the VP does in fact, only have a ministerial role in the election certification process. That's what the Framers APPEAR to have intended, but never made that explicitly clear in the text of the Constitution itself, hence the debate over Adams and Jefferson, and still today.
And if it's not SCOTUS' responsibility to deal with electoral disputes, as currently authorized under the Constitution, then the Constitution must be amended to establish a new proceeds for dealing with disputes and who is to do it.
In other words, the Vice President does have the latitude to reject electors under the law as it is written. If Pence’s excuses contained in his infamous letter were correct, there would be no need to change the Electoral Count Act.
Wrong. The ECA renders the VP to a purely ministerial role. That's what Pence said, which was correct. But the CONSTITUTION itself says no such thing. The problem is the Constitution is silent. Neither gives VP explicit power as judge of legitimacy of Electoral certificates, nor does it render VP solely ministerial. It. Is. Silent. Pence was incorrect about VP actions in election history though. Both Adams and Jefferson did make unilateral "judgements" determining certificate legitimacy. There's little dispute about Adams' action in 1796, as the certificate was in the form required by the Constitution. But Jefferson absolutely made himself president in 1800 when he unlawfully counted GA's certificate, despite it being nothing close to the form required by the Constitution. Problem was nobody really challenged his bullshit move. The issue is that the Constitution is unclear as to VP's power or lack of power. Granted, I would contend such power should NOT exclusively lie with one person. I don't believe that was ever the intent of the Framers. The ECA is right in saying that VP is ministerial, however, that's not what the Constitution says, so it should have to be amended to clarify, rather that federal statute.
The real judges of election disputes, should be, and under the words as written by the Constitution, are the JUDGES... SCOTUS, which in theory, is supposed to be the impartial arbiters of the law.
If the ECA says the VP’s role is ministerial, why not a there a need to change it?
Are you perhaps making the error of thinking that these people are acting logically and/or sensibly?
The logical and sensible thing to do would be to repent, retire, and hope to Heaven your ass don't get hung. And even if it does, still repent.
The ECA itself, has no legal grounds under the Constitution. It need be challenged and struck down. The Constitution needs to be amended, to clarify that the VP does in fact, only have a ministerial role in the election certification process. That's what the Framers APPEAR to have intended, but never made that explicitly clear in the text of the Constitution itself, hence the debate over Adams and Jefferson, and still today.
And if it's not SCOTUS' responsibility to deal with electoral disputes, as currently authorized under the Constitution, then the Constitution must be amended to establish a new proceeds for dealing with disputes and who is to do it.