That was interesting, and for once in my entire internet experience the comments that followed were worth reading, too.
More to the immediate point, it is possible to imagine the likes of Representatives Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, and perhaps a handful of the other Trumpiest members of Congress not only voting to reject Joe Biden's electors from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsyvlania, and Wisconsin but actually to accept the alternate electors despite the fact that their ballots will arrive at the Capitol bearing the imprimatur of no state authority save what they have proclaimed for themselves. Should that occur and should at least one ambitious worm of a Senator--Rand Paul? Ron Johnson? Ted Cruz?--go along, Congress will be required to go through the motions of evaluating whether the votes cast by the duly appointed Biden electors or those cast by the Trump "alternate slate" are real.
I've read through a number of sources and still don't see what would prevent the challenge based on the Safe Harbor provision. He seems to agree. I've read that the safe harbor provision would most likely come into play if the House and the Senate voted differently on whether or not to accept a challenged state's electoral votes.
The language of the Safe Harbor provision is clear. If the law is followed, Pence would rule an objection to electors of a state that qualifies under the Safe Harbor provision out of order. Neither House of Congress can vote to reject such votes, because the statute says they shall be cast. That's the purpose and the express language of the provision -- to take away any discretion the Constitution might have to reject those votes.
I actually disagree with the quoted paragraph. The combination of § 5 (safe harbor) and § 6 (certification of electors by governor) will prevent any cosplay elector slates from being read by the tellers. Just because I send in a slate of electors consisting of me and my friends using the right forms doesn't mean they get read by the tellers.
ETA: Just saw a couple of articles saying that McConnell has started to pressure R Senators not to join any objection filed by a House Member. Whether he ends up majority leader or minority leader, he has substantial power to punish those who don't go along.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
"Contingent Election" is what you are looking for...just follow the breadcrumbs I have left behind.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
ETA: Just saw a couple of articles saying that McConnell has started to pressure R Senators not to join any objection filed by a House Member. Whether he ends up majority leader or minority leader, he has substantial power to punish those who don't go along.
McConnell's sister-in-law was named to Board of bank in China on November 16th...probably a coincidence.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
That was interesting, and for once in my entire internet experience the comments that followed were worth reading, too.
More to the immediate point, it is possible to imagine the likes of Representatives Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, and perhaps a handful of the other Trumpiest members of Congress not only voting to reject Joe Biden's electors from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsyvlania, and Wisconsin but actually to accept the alternate electors despite the fact that their ballots will arrive at the Capitol bearing the imprimatur of no state authority save what they have proclaimed for themselves. Should that occur and should at least one ambitious worm of a Senator--Rand Paul? Ron Johnson? Ted Cruz?--go along, Congress will be required to go through the motions of evaluating whether the votes cast by the duly appointed Biden electors or those cast by the Trump "alternate slate" are real.
I've read through a number of sources and still don't see what would prevent the challenge based on the Safe Harbor provision. He seems to agree. I've read that the safe harbor provision would most likely come into play if the House and the Senate voted differently on whether or not to accept a challenged state's electoral votes.
The language of the Safe Harbor provision is clear. If the law is followed, Pence would rule an objection to electors of a state that qualifies under the Safe Harbor provision out of order.
Would you mind quoting the language you see forcing this? Because as I read it, and as it seems to be represented in almost every source I've read on this, all that is required to move to separate sessions to debate a challenge is that it be submitted in writing, have a member of the House and Senate signed on to it, and that it state clearly without argument the cause for the challenge.
The safe harbor protection seems to be a reasonable basis for rejecting a challenge...but not for the VP to prevent the move to separate sessions. And it would seem to be the tie breaker in the event the House and Senate come to different conclusions.
ETA: Just saw a couple of articles saying that McConnell has started to pressure R Senators not to join any objection filed by a House Member. Whether he ends up majority leader or minority leader, he has substantial power to punish those who don't go along.
That's positive. The real threat here, in my opinion, isn't that any challenge could be successful in changing the outcome and leaving us with Trump as President. The primary threat is the damage to the democratic process and public confidence that comes with multiple states having their electoral votes taken to argumentation. If McConnell is finally bending towards protecting democratic institutions over Trump loyalty, that's only a good thing.
McConnell's sister-in-law was named to Board of bank in China on November 16th...probably a coincidence.
It’s good of you to confirm that your allegiance lies with the usurpation of our democratic systems and in fealty to China’s interests. : D
yep, I'm a big fan of the insurrection act.
ETA "Russia!"
Last edited by subgenius on Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
Joe Biden, allegedly the most popular Democrat to date, just spoke to a sparse gathering at Pullman yards in Atlanta. He was rallying support for Ossman, except he called him Orsman (tricky teleprompter, yet again).
Yep, you guys are right- that's just more evidence of record breaking votes.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
Sure. Here is 3 U.S.C. § 5, which is the Safe Harbor provision.
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
"shall be conclusive" and "shall govern in the counting" are clear and unambiguous. "hereinafter regulated" includes § 15, which appears to be the section you are talking about. Because the selection of electors under this provision is "conclusive," what is there to vote on?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Joe Biden, allegedly the most popular Democrat to date, just spoke to a sparse gathering at Pullman yards in Atlanta. He was rallying support for Ossman, except he called him Orsman (tricky teleprompter, yet again).
Yep, you guys are right- that's just more evidence of record breaking votes.
The evidence of record breaking votes is.... drumroll....the court of the record breaking votes.
Poor butthurt little facist.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Joe Biden, allegedly the most popular Democrat to date, just spoke to a sparse gathering at Pullman yards in Atlanta. He was rallying support for Ossman, except he called him Orsman (tricky teleprompter, yet again).
Yep, you guys are right- that's just more evidence of record breaking votes.
The evidence of record breaking votes is.... drumroll....the court of the record breaking votes.
Poor butthurt little facist.
in the spirit of canpakes - wth is a "facist"?
you prelude was incomprehensible.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
