dChan
Anonymous ID: 682020 Jan. 1, 2021, 8:06 a.m. No.12267206   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7492 >>7577

>>12267054

once again a post with MISinformation and/or DISinformation -option 1 is NOT possible as a candidate must receive a MAJORITY of electors to win - 232 no good

it is somewhat confusing but comes down to this

if congress follows the 12th amendment (as they should) this is ALL it says:

 

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

 

simple right? no wait CONGRESS fucked it up with a bogus law many years ago claiming to establish "counting procedures" in the electoral college act of 1894

these so called procedures are substance CHANGES to the 12th amendment and on their face INVALID

these include this "objection" procedure (which is prolly ok) and the requirement that BOTH houses of congress approve throwing out a certified slate (which will not happen and is NOT constitutional at all imo)

THAT is why there is so much confusion

 

coincidence? no it is not

 

sadly SCOTUS has not (YET) solved this problem

Anonymous ID: 682020 Jan. 1, 2021, 8:09 a.m. No.12267238   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7251 >>7268 >>7484

>>12267054

on top of all this fuggery and chaos lawfag has a question for all anons cuz lawfag is scratching his head on it

BUSH V GORE decided the FL election -scotus ruled FL could not change the rules for counting votes after the election

 

here is the mystery

WHY is there no TRUMP V BIDAN lawsuit in each state that changed its rules?

seems like there should be - same as BUSH v GORE

wtf?

Anonymous ID: 682020 Jan. 1, 2021, 8:19 a.m. No.12267371   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7639

>>12267205

 

see here is the PROBLEM with this lawsuit and why pence wont support it- they correctly alleges that

 

>An 1887 federal law known as the Electoral Count Act has the vice president presiding over the congressional meeting.

 

and they further correctly allege that:

 

>However the suit led by Gohmert tries to invalidate the law as an unconstitutional

 

THAT PART IS CORRECT BUT WHAT FOLLOWS IS NONSENSE:

 

" constraint on the vice president's authority to choose among competing claims of victory when state-level election results are disputed."

 

THE VP never had this power under the constitution - NEVER

the act is unconstitutional becuase it CONFLICTS AND CHANGES the 12th amendment which prescribes the exact process

as follows

 

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority"

 

wut is missing? HOW does a person fail to get a majority? that is not specified and congress (unlawfully) filled in the blanks giving themselves this power

 

in that regard perhaps the gohmert suit makes sense BUT just giving that power to the VP is only one option - there are others that could occur

Anonymous ID: 682020 Jan. 1, 2021, 8:37 a.m. No.12267583   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12267484

>It may be much better for the supreme court to uphold a process

very goood point BUT that is wut the gohmert lawsuit is trying to do - although proactively

perhaps potus or bidan will do this after the 6th depending on who is declared winner