Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
Ok. Your subject knowledge is good. But as a lay man, my question remains the same. What Congress did in 1876 was unconstitutional? If not, what stopped them from doing the same in 2020?
Yes, because Congress never had and still doesn't have explicit constitutional authority to adjudicate any Electoral disputes.
The Founders/Framers, unfortunately overlooked the possibility that there would be disputed Electors, at least when they wrote and ratified the Constitution. They actually realized this error very quickly, as early as January 1800. Federalist Congressman Ross foresaw and warned that there would be shenanigans by the anti-administration (anti-Federalist, "Jeffersonians") during the upcoming election of 1800.
Ross tried to get federal legislation passed to solve this issue of the lack of an explicit delegation of authority as to who would adjudicate potential disputes. Unfortunately, the effort died in the Senate. Granted, that was partly due to Adams' running mate Pinckney, who argued, CORRECTLY, the the Constitution did not give any authority to Congress to settle the issue via statutory law and violate both the separation of powers doctrine, as well as usurp the power of the states, in particular their legislatures, who under the Constitution were authorizes with plenary power over appointing presidential Electors.
Shenanigans indeed occurred, mostly at the hands of Madison, Monroe, French Jacobins, war pigs, and all with Jefferson's knowledge and approval (from the "shadows" of Monticello to avoid the appearance of impropriety). As President of the Senate, Jefferson capped of his legal coup by counting himself in even though the certificates of GA were not in the form required by the Constitution. This is the ONLY case in which the President of the Senate arguably had any authority in terms of acknowledging the legitimacy or illegitimacy of purported Electoral certificates. Simply put, the certificates presented should have been rejected because they were not in constitutionally required form, regardless of whether or not the purported votes were authentic or not. Jefferson, in following Adams previous example, though Adams acted correctly unlike Jefferson, asserted his own authority to be the sole judge of legitimacy. The problem is that nobody in Congress spoke up. And the bigger problem is that Adams didn't object until years later in a private letter (he was either slightly mistaken in his memory and confused GA with SC, or he was referring to the other bullshit that happened in SC where he was cheated). He should have objected and sought relief from SCOTUS, the only body with any valid claim to have constitutional authority to adjudicate such disputes.
This whole 1800 fiasco set up a terrible precedent of the President of the Senate and Congress establishing for themselves power the Constitution didn't explicitly give them. During the Rebellion of 1860-1865 and the 1870s Reconstruction Era, Congress further expanded their power by agreeing to rules (via resolution, not legislation) on determining whether a state was in rebellion or not, thus determining whether their purported Electors would be accepted or rejected. One could argue those were extraordinary times, but it was still an unconstitutional power grab, or rather the filling of a power vacuum, if we put the best construction on things and assume the intent was good.
It's mind boggling why SCOTUS didn't assert themselves to exercise the authority that it alone possessed under the Constitution. Then again, they can only rule on cases brought to them, and to that point, nobody ever did. Everyone just blindly accepted that the President of the Senate and Congress had these adjudication powers, because they said they did.
So in 1876, Congress at least did one thing right, constitutionally establishing an Electoral Tribunal (later called Commission). Now, they were wrong to include sitting Congressmen on that Tribunal, but again, political partisanship ruled the day. But the alternatives were far, far worse. Perhaps it was a good thing that Congress was divided, lest the Republicans held the House too and they would have supported the claim that the President of the Senate (a Republican, and NOT even the VP, since the office was vacant at the time). The Southern Democrats would have resorted to open rebellion and restarting the war if the Republicans did that. So luckily, we got the Tribunal, albeit only partly legal. The Tribunal legally issued the correct ruling that the Constitution did NOT grant the President of the Senate any adjudication power outside of opening and counting the Electoral certificates, and attesting that they were in the constitutionally required form. After that, the Tribunal correctly ruled that they could NOT "go behind" the votes as were given by the lawfully appointed Electors, in accordance with state law, federal law and the Constitution. The Dems wanted them to overrule the decisions of the Canvassing Boards in FL, SC and LA who under state law held the sole authority to certify legal votes and reject illegal ones. Those laws were valid, approved by state legislatures who under the Constitution retained plenary power to do so. Same goes for the bullshit the Dem governor in OR attempted at filling a vacancy with a Dem, contrary to OR law.
The 1877 Commission (Tribunal) gets an A for effort, doing the best they could have do given the situation. Congress gets a B for doing it rightish, except for the inclusion of Congressmen. But of course all of that good got undone when a later Congress passed the ECA 1887, securing for itself power not actually authorized by the Constitution. It's really quite sad. Legal scholars in 1877 were arguing for a constitutional amendment, and yet it didn't happen.
So here we are today, after the ECA, then it being codified into 3 USC (at least most of it verbatim), and multiple SCOTUS cases (Bush v. Gore was huge) ending a century of shit unconstitutional precedent, and reclaiming its rightful authority over Electoral dispute adjudication. Doesn't matter what unconstitutional federal statute says, neither the President of the Senate nor Congress held any authority to do a damn thing in 2020. This time, unlike in 1800, efforts were made to do bring the case to SCOTUS, who for some inexplicable reason, punted with the legal magick of claiming "lack of standing."
It was a dodge, no doubt about it. Why? Who knows. Dirt on the Justices? Threat? Instructed to do it by the presumed "good guys"? They should have reviewed the challenges, in fulfilling their constitutional duty. Hopefully they don't fail to do so again on January 6th.
But the Constitution still says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't just make shit up because it benefits what we want. That's the evil way of the leftists...
What is long overdue, is a constitutional amendment to forever settle the dispute over Electoral dispute adjudication. Until then, the only constitutional remedy is SCOTUS, or Congress establishing a lower tribunal tasked specifically to settle such cases.
Legislature makes law. Executive enforces law. Judiciary settles disputes over the law. Separation of powers. #AmericanGov101
Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
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
You already asked this question, which I already answered.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqKp8V3J/x/c/4ToiWKNkZbl
Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
Ok. Your subject knowledge is good. But as a lay man, my question remains the same. What Congress did in 1876 was unconstitutional? If not, what stopped them from doing the same in 2020?
Yes, because Congress never had and still doesn't have explicit constitutional authority to adjudicate any Electoral disputes.
The Founders/Framers, unfortunately overlooked the possibility that there would be disputed Electors, at least when they wrote and ratified the Constitution. They actually realized this error very quickly, as early as January 1800. Federalist Congressman Ross foresaw and warned that there would be shenanigans by the anti-administration (anti-Federalist, "Jeffersonians") during the upcoming election of 1800.
Ross tried to get federal legislation passed to solve this issue of the lack of an explicit delegation of authority as to who would adjudicate potential disputes. Unfortunately, the effort died in the Senate. Granted, that was partly due to Adams' running mate Pinckney, who argued, CORRECTLY, the the Constitution did not give any authority to Congress to settle the issue via statutory law and violate both the separation of powers doctrine, as well as usurp the power of the states, in particular their legislatures, who under the Constitution were authorizes with plenary power over appointing presidential Electors.
Shenanigans indeed occurred, mostly at the hands of Madison, Monroe, French Jacobins, war pigs, and all with Jefferson's knowledge and approval (from the "shadows" of Monticello to avoid the appearance of impropriety). As President of the Senate, Jefferson capped of his legal coup by counting himself in even though the certificates of GA were not in the form required by the Constitution. This is the ONLY case in which the President of the Senate arguably had any authority in terms of acknowledging the legitimacy or illegitimacy of purported Electoral certificates. Simply put, the certificates presented should have been rejected because they were not in constitutionally required form, regardless of whether or not the purported votes were authentic or not. Jefferson, in following Adams previous example, though Adams acted correctly unlike Jefferson, asserted his own authority to be the sole judge of legitimacy. The problem is that nobody in Congress spoke up. And the bigger problem is that Adams didn't object until years later in a private letter (he was either slightly mistaken in his memory and confused GA with SC, or he was referring to the other bullshit that happened in SC where he was cheated). He should have objected and sought relief from SCOTUS, the only body with any valid claim to have constitutional authority to adjudicate such disputes.
This whole 1800 fiasco set up a terrible precedent of the President of the Senate and Congress establishing for themselves power the Constitution didn't explicitly give them. During the Rebellion of 1860-1865 and the 1870s Reconstruction Era, Congress further expanded their power by agreeing to rules (via resolution, not legislation) on determining whether a state was in rebellion or not, thus determining whether their purported Electors would be accepted or rejected. One could argue those were extraordinary times, but it was still an unconstitutional power grab, or rather the filling of a power vacuum, if we put the best construction on things and assume the intent was good.
It's mind boggling why SCOTUS didn't assert themselves to exercise the authority that it alone possessed under the Constitution. Then again, they can only rule on cases brought to them, and to that point, nobody ever did. Everyone just blindly accepted that the President of the Senate and Congress had these adjudication powers, because they said they did.
So in 1876, Congress at least did one thing right, constitutionally establishing an Electoral Tribunal (later called Commission). Now, they were wrong to include sitting Congressmen on that Tribunal, but again, political partisanship ruled the day. But the alternatives were far, far worse. Perhaps it was a good thing that Congress was divided, lest the Republicans held the House too and they would have supported the claim that the President of the Senate (a Republican, and NOT even the VP, since the office was vacant at the time). The Southern Democrats would have resorted to open rebellion and restarting the war if the Republicans did that. So luckily, we got the Tribunal, albeit only partly legal. The Tribunal legally issued the correct ruling that the Constitution did NOT grant the President of the Senate any adjudication power outside of opening and counting the Electoral certificates, and attesting that they were in the constitutionally required form. After that, the Tribunal correctly ruled that they could NOT "go behind" the votes as were given by the lawfully appointed Electors, in accordance with state law, federal law and the Constitution. The Dems wanted them to overrule the decisions of the Canvassing Boards in FL, SC and LA who under state law held the sole authority to certify legal votes and reject illegal ones. Those laws were valid, approved by state legislatures who under the Constitution retained plenary power to do so. Same goes for the bullshit the Dem governor in OR attempted at filling a vacancy with a Dem, contrary to OR law.
The 1877 Commission (Tribunal) gets an A for effort, doing the best they could have do given the situation. Congress gets a B for doing it rightish, except for the inclusion of Congressmen. But of course all of that good got undone when a later Congress passed the ECA 1887, securing for itself power not actually authorized by the Constitution. It's really quite sad. Legal scholars in 1877 were arguing for a constitutional amendment, and yet it didn't happen.
So here we are today, after the ECA, then it being codified into 3 USC (at least most of it verbatim), and multiple SCOTUS cases (Bush v. Gore was huge) ending a century of shit unconstitutional precedent, and reclaiming its rightful authority over Electoral dispute adjudication. Doesn't matter what unconstitutional federal statute says, neither the President of the Senate nor Congress held any authority to do a damn thing in 2020. This time, unlike in 1800, efforts were made to do bring the case to SCOTUS, who for some inexplicable reason, punted with the legal magick of claiming "lack of standing."
It was a dodge, no doubt about it. Why? Who knows. Dirt on the Justices? Threat? Instructed to do it by the presumed "good guys"? They should have reviewed the challenges, in fulfilling their constitutional duty. Hopefully they don't fail to do so again on January 6th.
But the Constitution still says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't just make shit up because it benefits what we want. That's the evil way of the leftists...
What is long overdue, is a constitutional amendment to forever settle the dispute over Electoral dispute adjudication. Until then, the only constitutional remedy is SCOTUS, or Congress establishing a lower tribunal tasked specifically to settle such cases.
Legislature makes law. Executive enforces law. Judiciary settles disputes over the law. Separation of powers. #AmericanGov101
Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/