DJT indirectly supporting and pointing towards SCOTUS Brunson v Adams 22-380 case?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
Under the Constitution, the President of the Senate does not have any explicit authority to do what DJT suggests Pence should have done. Doing so would have been a violation of the Constitution. After the state legislatures permitted their governors to send unlawfully appointed Electors, the only legal body remaining to remedy such illegal acts, is the Court.
Neither the President of the Senate, nor is Congress a judicial body. SCOTUS. And we we've been waiting on them for far too long...
You may be right about this but I still think that a simple investigation before certifying the election should have been the bare minimum done by the Congress, especially considering that 100 members of Congress claimed election fraud and irregularities backed by evidence!
AND you have NARROWED DOWN THE ESSENCE OF THE BRUNSON CASE!!!
Well Done!!!
Congress only possesses investigatory powers in respect to matters of crafting legislation. Again, it's not a judicial body, except in only two cases: judges of Congressional elections and impeachment. That's it. Every other matter of a judicial nature, under the Constitution, is left to the Courts, SCOTUS in particular, to handle.
However, the Constitution does authorize Congress with the power to establish lower courts and tribunals, such as one for settling election disputes... short of an amendment to the Constitution, that would be the quickest, best, constitutionally legal remedy for 2020, 2022 and all future disputes.
Ok. So what Congress did in the disputed 1876 presidential election was not required to be done in 2020?
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876
What Congress did in 1876-77, was create a special judicial Tribunal to settle the Hayes/Tilden election dispute. It was actually a correct constitutional, legal remedy, albeit it should have just gone to SCOTUS, but understandably with a Republican favored Court, it would have appeared to be quite partisan. They did the best that could have been done, expect that there should NOT have been sitting Congressmen on the Committee (Tribunal). Even though the Constitution didn't explicitly forbid legislators from being on the Committee (Tribunal), it was certainly a breach of the separation of powers. Ultimately didn't matter because it was an equal number of Republicans (controlled Senate) and Democrats (controlled House), so that was all a was and it came down to the Justices, as it really should have been. Was just Congress trying to take power for itself since there was a vacuum. Sadly, because the people tolerated it, Congress unlawfully gave itself even more unconstitutional power in 1887.
We are NOT talking about POWER per se, BUT the Power of BOTH Houses to do their due diligence AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT...Both Chamber DID NOT DO "DUE DILIGENCE"
No, we're talking about AUTHORITY, as explicitly delegated in and by the Constitution. Congress has no authority to adjudicate presidential Electoral disputes because the Constitution doesn't give it any.
"Due diligence" means following the Constitution. Congress attempting to usurp the law to wield power it is not authorized with, would be the exact opposite of due diligence. Same applies to the President of the Senate.
If you don't like what the Constitution says or doesn't say, then your problem is with the law. Work to get it changed. But don't lie about it actually says and doesn't say.