As titled; the US house of usurpers just passed an act attacking the original Electoral Count Act of 1887, apparently at the behest of their fraudulent "January 6 committee" and they did this specifically to "prevent another Jan. 6."
The senate also has their own version...AND 10 "REPUBLICAN" SENATORS SUPPORTING IT!!!!!!!!
This is absolute fucking lunacy and sheer evil. I'm fucking enraged.
If these faggots "won fair & square in the most secure, free & fair election in history" WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY LITERALLY CHANGING OUR ENTIRE VOTING SYSTEM???
That's not to even mention the fact they unleashed an entire God damned biowewapon upon the planet to give them an excuse to ram through mail-in voting and drastically alter how votes are counted and ballots are handled.
WINNERS DO NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME!!!!!!!
LINKS:
(Sorry; IDK if we are not supposed to use archive.org, but I tried archive.is and both times I tried, it literally said I was 1,500 in queue..... no joke.....)
Another archive with more info, specifically about the senate's version:
######## ..
EDITED TO ADD::
***Hey shoot frens; you know what; I just realized that I accidentally used the word "COLLEGE" in the title, where it should have been "COUNT". ***
The title SHOULD have read "Electoral COUNT Act" and NOT "Electoral COLLEGE Act."
This was an honest mistake on my part.
I see where the title is different from the article & I apologize; it was absolutely NOT intentional and NOT an attempt to get clicks / mislead / mis-inform; just an honest brain fart.
Obviously I was thinking about the Electoral COLLEGE, and typed that instead of "Count."
This IS still extremely significant, however....... none of my other sentiments change based on this one word.
X
No, the 12th did no such thing. The votes shall be counted (tallied). No explicit mention of adjudication power, not for President of Senate nor Congress. If anything, the context and syntax of the text would more imply that "duty" to be given to President of Senate as opposed to Congress, which functions solely as an observing body, UNLESS there is a tie in majority or no majority. Only then does Congress have explicit power to involve itself in the Electoral process. An election without a majority is not the same as a disputed election. You keep conflating the two scenarios and thus your argument for this interpretation of implied powers that simply aren't there. The very fact that as early as 1800, they were discussing the need to clarify who exactly has the authority and duty to settle disputes simply proves that it was a flaw that the Framers overlooked, or rather in their naivete they wrongly presumed that the states would themselves better police their own Electoral appointments and there be no need for a further level of adjudication. And how did they suggest a fix? By the appointment of a Tribunal, which included at the very least, the Chief Justice, thus a judicial presence. That's why the justices were involved in 1876 to eliminate the perception of partisanship in having just Congress deliberate.
You like Berry argue that Congress is best suited to adjudicate. I argue the opposite, as it is an inherently political body, more susceptible to partisanship and conniving. A corrupt judge is far easier to deal with than an entire corrupt legislative body. If the judges err so egregiously, Congress retains its lawful authority to remove them. Checks and balances. And yet, if the people truly want the cesspool of Congress to have this authority, by all means they can give it to Congress. BUT the Constitution requires an amendment for that purpose, not just Congress taking it upon themselves to give themselves power... if the Constitution already makes it so clear that it has said power then why the need to make additional statutes? 🤔😉
Only a foreign entity would want to make it easier to corrupt American institutions? Fren, your analysis of American honesty is noble, but completely misguided. Partisan politics is a competition, one in which all sides are tempted to manipulate, swindle and cheat all on their own, without any foreign pressure. It's been going on since our very first elections. It will undoubtedly, sadly, continue. Thus why the need for better rule making governing the competitive process.
I did not say that. I have said, numerous times, that the Court is, at least theoretically, not a political, partisan body, unlike Congress which is inherently a political body and unfortunately has become hyper partisan, much to the naive disappointment of the Framers.
It is true that Davis was originally chosen to be the quote "impartial" 5th Justice. Even though Davis could have served on the Commission, despite the contingent election victory winning the Senate seat he'd later take, he didn't... sucks for the Dems, but hey, the Commission was THEIR idea. After all, they disagreed with Hayes and the Republicans who argued that the President of the Senate (who at the time, was not the VP due to,vacancy) had sole adjudication authority, and pushed the plan for the Commission in hopes that they could at worst get the Election thrown to the House where they held a majority of Reps and state delegations. But remind me again about how impartial, and fairminded the Congressional cesspool is...
Just because Bradley was appointed by a Republican doesn't mean that he wasn't impartial, in fact that can be said of all the participating Justices. All that matters, is whether or not their decisions were CORRECT. And Bradley's opinions on the laws and facts of the case were indeed, CORRECT. Moreover, after the Democrat shits ran Bradley through the mud in the aftermath, Davis himself AGREED with Bradley. So this argument that "had the 'more impartial' Davis served, then Tilden would have been 'rightfully' declared winner" argument is unfunded and frankly utterly nonsensical.
Sure, as I've conceded before, it is easier to corrupt 1 person than it is 200. And as I've retorted before, it's far easier to get rid of 1 corrupt judge than it is 200 corrupt Congressmen. How is leaving an inherently judicial matter up to a nonjudicial body, full of mostly incompetent, legally illiterate, easily corruptable "legislators" (read: puppets of lobbyists and special interests) moving towards a more "perfect" system? Quite the opposite... it rather moves closer to a more easily exploitable, partisan fuelled shitshow.
And to reiterate, while this debate over what we both think is better improvements is stimulating, it still ignores the central argument that you continue to assert without actually evidencing, e.g. the claim that Congress is vested by the Constitution with adjudication authority over Electoral disputes. As I've pointed out time and again, with my own analysis and even more in-depth analysis from established historians, lawyers and constitutional experts, the Constitution at best is unclear regarding who exactly is vested with said authority. The 12th Amendment doesn't explicitly enumerate the power to anyone. So we must look elsewhere for guidance on dealing with such judicial matters. And Article III is EXPLICITLY clear as to that answer:
If you don't think it wise, then argue for an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. But these assertions that the Constitution says something it doesn't, or that the problem can simply be changed via statute even though Congress isn't authorized with the legislative power to do so, are disingenuous and getting boring.
Never claimed that judges never rule in partisan fashion. But the body is by design supposed to be impartial, and far more often than Congress, acts as much. Since 2008, there have been double the amount of unanimous SOCTUS cases (40%) than there were 5-4 rulings (20%). But the media doesn't cover the "boring" cases, only the divisive high profile cases. This distraction of an argument dodges the reality that Congress is THE MOST partisan political body in government.
The system has the safeguard of a threat of removal as a penalty for abuse of office. Never suggested removal before a vote. Rather, if abuse occurs, then Congress can certainly deal with abusive judges. It's silly to think that this ever looming threat of removal doesn't keep most judges in check.
Why is impeachment silly? Congress has this explicit power. The only way to get rid of Congressmen is through elections, which we know full well are prone to abuse. And this assumes that the more righteous candidate is actually the person desired by the voters.
Again, removal of 1 abuser is easier than removal of 10, 15, 20, 40, 100, 200... the randomness of the number I choose matters not, because it's always still going to be bigger than 1. It's silly arguing percentages of the body as if that has any relevance to the arguments being debated. Sure, 1/9 of Congressional seats might have changed, but are you accounting for retirements, incumbents losing primaries only to be replaced by another member of their Party, or the possibility that the succeeding member of the opposition Party being just as much of a corrupt shit? How do you explain the longevity of such criminals like Pelosi? It's not just purging some or even the bulk of scum, but removal of the leadership of said scum. But they are protected by a corrupted elections system or at the least, a corrupted electorate. At least in the case of an impeachment, there's the potential for a counterbalancing vote to offset that of the corrupt vote. No judge has been removed, but not because of the prohibition of it being possible. One could argue that the fact that hundreds of Congressmen have been "removed" (via elections) compared to no judges, actually indicates a far less abusive Court compared to Congress...
Only in cases explicitly defined, such as judges of elections of their own body membership, and impeachment. No such power of presidential Electoral dispute adjudication is explicitly enumerated.
And every time I refuted your purported evidence, demonstrating clearly how they failed to support the argument you're trying to make. You're choosing to ignore the facts, in favor of your flawed interpretation of them.
Previous Courts did hear election cases. Apparently the current Court didn't have the balls to do so, or were ignorant of constitutional law. They should have heard the cases. Humans err. Or perhaps they were instructed (by whoever is in charge of this "operation") to not hear the cases, because that inaction was necessary to produce more impactful reactions, and/or prevent reactions from Democrats who, like in 1876, made very credible threats of violence in response?
In any case, just because those who [currently] do the job appear to not hold the correct view of the Constitution, doesn't make the correct view, incorrect. What they do or don't do, doesn't change what the Constitution says or doesn't say. Again, you're trying to say it says something that it doesn't actually say. And that's the heart of this entire debate, which until you're willing to admit, will prevent any progress in agreement as how to fix the flaws in the system. The flaw, and lawful process to remedy it, must first be agreed to before we can proceed.