Given that he surely knows how unpopular that opinion is amongst his base, could that be a further hint that Mike Pence is secretly a white hat?
Trump did say back when the left stole the election "sometimes it takes more courage to do the wrong thing".
Thoughts?
"Not certifying" is the same thing as voiding. There's no technical difference, just an argument of sophistry.
Please cite where in the Constitution, does the text state that the President of the Senate is authorized to "certify" anything? I'll save you the trouble... you won't find it, because it's not there.
The POTS has one explicitly defined duty, and one duty only, which is to open all the certificates. That's it. The Constitution is silent as to anything else. All the rest is inference. And there's the rub. You, along with countless others over the past 220 years, are arguing what you believe the POTS should have the authority to do, or not do, regardless of what the Constitution actually says or doesn't say. But what one wants something to say, doesn't change what it actually says, or doesn't say. Because of this lack of foresight on the part of the Framers (alas, human nature), the debate over the mess has continued for over two centuries. The argument that the POTS has such alleged authority, is the absolute weakest of all of the arguments. If there is one positive takeaway from the findings of the 1877 Electoral Commission, it's that they definitively put this unfounded argument to bed. If you'd read their reports, you'd not still be attempting to rally behind an utterly stupid argument, pushed by the same people who push Calhounian Lost Cause "unilateral withdrawal" drivel. They are convincing you to rally behind a logically void argument, in order to make you look stupid.
Now, arguably the "necessary and proper" clause does authorize Congress with the power to create federal statutory law to iron out the nuts and bolts of the Count procedures, as in the appointment of tellers, record keeping, order by which the certificates are opened and counted (alphabetically, order received, oldest state first etc.) etc etc. We can see as far back as the 1st Congress, this process playing out. But this doesn't give Congress any authority to grant itself unilateral judicial power as far as adjudicating Electoral disputes, which would render the separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary moot.
I'm quite well aware of what exactly happened.
Where in the Constitution would we find such a term? Again, I'll save you the trouble. You won't. It's not there. The concept and term of "dueling electors" actually comes from the debates over what was to be done during the Civil War elections, which spilt over into the Reconstruction period. Though the term started appearing in speeches, writings and debates, even in Congressional resolutions, it never made its way into statutory law let alone the Constitution. Again, while the concept itself is open to debate, you're arguing that something is in the Constitution, that simply isn't there. As to the concept of "dueling Electors", there are the Electors appointed by the states, in accordance with state and federal law (or at least purported to be) and there are Electors who dispute the appointment of their opponents as having been done illegally. The only certificates that make it to the "Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate" are those of the Electors legally appointed. The question then that arises, is over whether the Electors appointed by the state were done so legally. And yes, this is a valid issue, but one that is not up to the POTS or the Congress to determine, but up to the courts, more specifically, SCOTUS, at least unless and until Congress constitutionally establishes a lower tribunal specifically tasked with Electoral adjudication.
Rules loophole? What rules? Made on what day? What's the loophole? You can't just keep making shit up like this. On Jan 6, 2021, the Congress followed the procedures as laid out in 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1, which was derived from the 1887 ECA. The Congress and the POTS followed the "law". Whether or not everything in these laws are constitutional, is the actual issue. In any case, Congress did what they did, and the only legal remedy that remained (and still remains) was for Trump to appeal to SCOTUS for justice. Bluntly put, despite his "complaining" he didn't really do a damn thing, a strategy which appears to have been intentional. Whether or not SCOTUS was compromised, failed in their responsibility, or was in on letting the sting play out, so that the military could be used, is still up for debate. I don't know either way. Can't say. All I can say, is what the Constitution says, and how the process is supposed to be followed.
tldr; your anger is justified, but you're blaming the wrong person, which is exactly what the enemy wants.
I appreciate your thorough reply, and I get what you are saying. As you do appear to have a good understanding of the process, I will keep this reply brief.
You claim to know exactly what what happened in the senate; but you don't seem to understand what the senate rules committee did on that day with a sudden [senate] rules change, that in effect inserted the senate rules committee into the election process.
This is correct, and this is precisely why Mike Pence needed to refuse to certify the election. That issue, the validity of the state appointed electors, was never considered by the senate, because the senate rules committee inserted itself into the election process- an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, to rule that the challengers were invalid(!), and refused to hear that challenge.
And you are also correct in that this specific matter was a case that needed to be addressed by the SCOTUS.
That is the key issue. When the senate rules committee invented a loophole to insert themselves into the election process (do your homework if you don't know what I mean) only hours prior to state electors challenging the validity of their state electors, Mike Pence had a constitutional duty to protect the constitution. He needed to stop the certification, and force the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of the senate rules change. He did not, thus violating his oath of office, and allowing Joseph Robinette Biden to become an illegally installed POTUS.
More accurately, the counting process, a process set by 3 USC, statutory law that to a significant degree, is unconstitutional. Congress has no constitutional authority to insert itself into any Electoral adjudication matters.
Where in the Constitution, is the President of the Senate explicitly authorized with this alleged power to "certify" the count of the Electoral votes, let alone judge as to the legitimate appointment of said Electors?
Where in the Constitution, is the Senate explicitly authorized to "consider" the "validity" of the state appointed Electors?
That's a BINGO. So let's focus on that actual issue, as opposed to wasting time on arguments in sophistry.
Here's some better homework, research how Congress invented a power that the Constitution never authorized, to insert itself into the Electoral adjudication process. Start in the 1862 and work your way through 1876, the ECA, and the codification of that statute. "Senate rules loopholes" are peanuts. Go for the big fish, e.g. the unconstitutional intrusion of the entire Legislative body into the realm of the Judiciary.
And he has the constitutional duty to not violate the Constitution. Violating the Constitution, to protect it, is still a violation of the Constitution. How we win matters, and violating the Constitution to save it, was not the way, especially when there were and are still several constitutionally sound remedies yet to be exercised.
You mean, the COUNT of the Electoral votes. Again, there is no "certification" power explicitly authorized by the Constitution, not to the POTS, not to Congress. Yes, it's a glaring flaw of the Constitution, but alas, it's there. We can't just imagine in a fix that isn't there.
Trump could have filed a direct challenge to SCOTUS anytime, just as Bush did in 2000. Technically, he didn't. But he still could. And yet, he hasn't. Why is that? And again, this "Senate rules change" is a deadend argument. The real argument is over the unlawful actions of state governments to appoint Electors as "winners" of elections that were unconstitutionally run. That's the whole enchilada.
Donald J. Trump was the lawful President of the United States of America, clothed with immense power. He was the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military on earth, whose duty was to enforce federal law and the US Constitution, and to suppress the insurrection and rebellion that occurred in 2020. And yet, the Resident was allowed to occupy the WH. Where was Trump? If you're going to apply this standard against Pence, why not Trump, especially given his exponentially greater power as POTUS as Rome was left burning (at least, from what we saw). Come, let us reason together. You're Longstreeting Pence to Leeionize Trump.
I like to think, and hope that it's true, that there was more going on behind the curtain with Trump and Pence making the hard decisions to sacrifice the Alamo in order to win Texas (not a big fan of the politics that pushed that domino, but I digress...). Still waiting for that grand reveal. It's been 2 years and popcorn is getting too expensive.
Agreed. And that is a matter best left to constitutional attorney's, and state, and federal judiciaries to rule on.
While we disagree on whether or not Pence had the constitutional authority to halt the counting of the electoral votes, he most certainly has a mouth, and he failed to use it to call out the clearly unethical, and arguably unconstitutional shenanigans of the senate rules committee on Jan. 6.
However one want to slice it- senate rules changes that were made on Jan. 6 were clearly done to affect the electoral counting process, and that alone qualifies as election interference.
Mike Pence did not contest that, and still does not to this day. Trump did contest the election, and still does to this day. One refused to uphold their oath of office- the other is still trying to uphold theirs.
He had no Constitutional authority to stop what was being done.
Lawyers attempted to fight Trump's legal battle for him, in a haphazard fashion. Can't tell me that DJT was less capable than GWB to get a challenge heard by SCOTUS. Either DJT is in fact 1.) a moron 2.) an enemy plant 3.) a genius or 4.) a great actor for whoever is truly behind the curtain. I still lean towards a combination of 3+4.