>>12317121

1/2

OK anon made an effort to "redact" the applicable laws on how this pence electoral process works. The constitution is very straightforward as seen below - o fcourse Congress fucked it up by passing a law called the "Electoral College Act" whic is a major POS with constitutional problems as you will see from the ez to read summaries - the question being, when you read them being is the congress law inconsistent with the constitution?

it seems imo the obvious answer is yes becuase the congress law really changes the way the potus is confirmed in congress giving power where the constitution does not - that is why there is drama and confusion on pence role - it is murky waters frens. where you see… it means i omitted extraneous text - if you see a ( ) it means i simplified a phrase or word - i also replaced "president of the Senate" with VP but be aware if pence does a no show it falls to President Pro tempre (Grassley) (PS no spell check on notepad)

summary - 12th amendment does not expressly grant or deny power to the VP to reject electoral votes but historical record, practice and clear implication does in fact grant power to do so - this was "clarified" by an act of congress which in effect unconsitutionally modifies the 12th amendment. so why would congress do this is it was clear VP had no power to act? they would not.

hope this helps…

12th amendment to the us constitution

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President…which… they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The (VP) shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; – 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….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; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice

>>12317681

2/2

3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress

U.S. Code

Notes

prev | next

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January… and the (VP) shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be … appointed… to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the (VP) all the certificates… of the electoral votes, which certificates…shall be opened… and said tellers…shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the…certificates;

…. and the votes having been ascertained and counted…the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States,

… Upon such reading of any such certificate… the (VP) SHALL call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

When all objections…shall have been received and read, the… objections shall be submitted to the Senate…and the House of Representatives for its decision;

…no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified (by any State) shall be rejected, but the two Houses may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

… If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been (certified)

BUT in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed is lawful… those only shall be counted (when) the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide (are)… authorized by its law;

…and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State….those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors…

…But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified… shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, the (VP) shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.

CONCLUSION

congress STOLE the power of the states with this law and gave themselves color of law authority to decide an election where there disputed electoral slates

senate has NO power to decide under the constitution

house has NO power to decide under the constitution

under this "law" they jointly control the outcome

so it can be seen that pence and potus are navigating murky waters using the constitution but also using the "valid" portions of the electoral counting law

its a hot mess anons

we need a major bombshell to move the sticks and win IMO

>>12317121

another path

on 1/6 the congress will debate objections to the electoral count

one or both houses will reject the objections

under their stated procedures this means the objections fail

one or more senators/congress members will immediately seek a writ at the scotus

they will prevail before 1/20 when scotus rules that the election must fall to the state legislatures under the 12th amendment

one vote each

>>12317726

roberts and scotus have NOT ruled on this

perhaps the know its coming and have distanced themselves from trump for optics

will see what happens

>>12317731

well he had already lost at scotus so i dont give him too much credit

>>12317738

is this supposed to be some royal insult?

its just lame and juvenile