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.
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 to better rule making governing the competitive process.