Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

Sorry guys, but what Trump said is just flat out wrong... likely intentionally.

Those who actually read Pence's letter explaining his eventual actions on Jan 6th, would have noticed that Pence never actually cited the CONSTITUTION, but rather he cited the ECA's (now 3 US Code) rendering of the President of the Senate to a ministerial function. Why? Because the Constitution itself is silent on the matter.

Even though Republicans argued in 1876 that President of the Senate had such judicial power, and even though Jefferson counted himself in, the 12th Amendment does NOT explicitly authorize the presiding officer with any such power. The text is not explicitly clear as to what "count" means, "tally" or "validate" (although the context and syntax imply "tally"), and does not specify as to who is responsible for settling Electoral appointment and voting disputes. That's why this massive flaw is been debated for 220 years. Even the Founding generation knew there was a problem as early as 1800 as they geared up for the bitter election of 1800... Federalists expected Jeffersonians to cheat, which they did, and anticipated the need for a dispute resolution process that the Constitution lacked.

BUT as to the constitutionality of this propossed bill, like the ECA 1887, it is indeed unconstitutional, at least the sections in which Congress unlawfully has given itself sole judicial power to resolve disputes. The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority. Necessary and Proper clause is irrelevant because there was no foregoing power to settle Electoral disputes. The matter is a judicial one, best left to the JUDICIARY. Until Congress sets up special election tribunals (temporary and/or permanent ones), which it could under its Article 1 Section 8 authority, then the original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS. Unless the Constitution is AMENDED, Congress has no authority to assert itself to be the judge of presidential Electoral disputes.

1 year ago
2 score
Reason: None provided.

Sorry guys, but what Trump said is just flat out wrong... likely intentionally.

Those who actually read Pence's letter explaining his eventual actions on Jan 6th, would have noticed that Pence never actually cited the CONSTITUTION, but rather he cited the ECA's (now 3 US Code) rendering of the President of the Senate to a ministerial function. Why? Because the Constitution itself is silent on the matter.

Even though Republicans argued in 1876 that President of the Senate had such judicial power, and even though Jefferson counted himself in, the 12th Amendment does NOT explicitly authorize the presiding officer with any such power. The text is not explicitly clear as to what "count" means, "tally" or "validate" (although the context implies "tally"), and does not specify as to who is responsible for settling Electoral appointment and voting disputes. That's why this massive flaw is been debated for 220 years. Even the Founding generation knew there was a problem as early as 1800 as they geared up for the bitter election of 1800... Federalists expected Jeffersonians to cheat, which they did, and anticipated the need for a dispute resolution process that the Constitution lacked.

BUT as to the constitutionality of this propossed bill, like the ECA 1887, it is indeed unconstitutional, at least the sections in which Congress unlawfully has given itself sole judicial power to resolve disputes. The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority. Necessary and Proper clause is irrelevant because there was no foregoing power to settle Electoral disputes. The matter is a judicial one, best left to the JUDICIARY. Until Congress sets up special election tribunals (temporary and/or permanent ones), which it could under its Article 1 Section 8 authority, then the original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS. Unless the Constitution is AMENDED, Congress has no authority to assert itself to be the judge of presidential Electoral disputes.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: Original

Sorry guys, but Trump is just flat out wrong.

Those who actually read Pence's letter explaining his eventual actions on Jan 6th, would have noticed that Pence never actually cited the CONSTITUTION, but rather he cited the ECA's (now 3 US Code) rendering of the President of the Senate to a ministerial function. Why? Because the Constitution itself is silent on the matter.

Even though Republicans argued in 1876 that President of the Senate had such judicial power, and even though Jefferson counted himself in, the 12th Amendment does NOT explicitly authorize the presiding officer with any such power. The text is not explicitly clear as to what "count" means, "tally" or "validate" (although the context implies "tally"), and does not specify as to who is responsible for settling Electoral appointment and voting disputes. That's why this massive flaw is been debated for 220 years. Even the Founding generation knew there was a problem as early as 1800 as they geared up for the bitter election of 1800... Federalists expected Jeffersonians to cheat, which they did, and anticipated the need for a dispute resolution process that the Constitution lacked.

BUT as to the constitutionality of this propossed bill, like the ECA 1887, it is indeed unconstitutional, at least the sections in which Congress unlawfully has given itself sole judicial power to resolve disputes. The Constitution doesn't give Congress that authority. Necessary and Proper clause is irrelevant because there was no foregoing power to settle Electoral disputes. The matter is a judicial one, best left to the JUDICIARY. Until Congress sets up special election tribunals (temporary and/or permanent ones), which it could under its Article 1 Section 8 authority, then the original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS. Unless the Constitution is AMENDED, Congress has no authority to assert itself to be the judge of presidential Electoral disputes.

1 year ago
1 score