Trump 2024 ???

[manifest destiny]

People keep saying the constitutionality of the Veep’s power to do what Trump asked is unsettled. Show me in the constitution where there is any hint of this power. What I read in the constitution that defines the VP’s power is that it is very limited. He is the president of the Senate, presides over the Senate, which amounts to being able to vote on legislation in case of a tie, counting electoral votes, and he’s first in line if the president leaves office, for whatever reason. He can’t even address the Senate unless he asks permission.

You're not debating me. Your debate is with persons far more knowledgable than you and I with regard to constitutional conflicts. I'm sure if you approach the legal and constitutional experts and scholars with your profound certainty they'll acquiesce.

 

[jamil]

You're not debating me. Your debate is with persons far more knowledgable than you and I with regard to constitutional conflicts. I'm sure if you approach the legal and constitutional experts and scholars with your profound certainty they'll acquiesce.

Or, they’ll explain where they find it hidden in the deepest penumbras in the constitution. It smells like justifying what they want it to say because they have a goal to achieve. Leftists aren’t the only activists.

 

[manifest destiny]

Or, they’ll explain where they find it hidden in the deepest penumbras in the constitution. It smells like justifying what they want it to say because they have a goal to achieve. Leftists aren’t the only activists.

Your absolutely right, activists exist on all sides.

 

[bwframe]

 

[BugI02]

I'm not seeing a chapter and verse here. I expected to see you quote the article/section/amendment where the constitution gives this authority to the Vice President. I was hoping you would because my copy seems to be missing that.

Electoral Count Act of 1887, the one Dems are in such a hurry to 'fix'

SEC. 2. That if any State shall have provided, bylaws enacted prior to
the day fixed for the appointmentof the electors, for its final determina-
tion of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or
any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or pro-
cedures, 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 the said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclu-
sive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided
in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascer-
tainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Ingomike]

There were no contested state electors. Each state certified their electors according to the laws of that state.

This is 100% wrong. It does not matter that the court cases said, the constitution is crystal clear on the point, state legislatures make election rules and no one else. That did not happen in most of the contested states.

 

[jamil]

Electoral Count Act of 1887, the one Dems are in such a hurry to 'fix'

SEC. 2. That if any State shall have provided, bylaws enacted prior to
the day fixed for the appointmentof the electors, for its final determina-
tion of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or
any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or pro-
cedures, 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 the said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclu-
sive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided
in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascer-
tainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

Well, first, this is a different bar you're overcoming than the one I challenged. The claim was that the constitution gives the VP the power to change the slate of electors, and there is no such wording in the constitution. You said in response to someone saying as much, something to the effect of "what don't you understand about "certify"? We'll any form of the word appears in the constitution very few times. And the VP does not do any certifying. He counts the votes that have been signed and certified.

This is a law, which is well enough. If the law was not followed it looks to me like Trump should go to court with such proof that the law was not followed. That doesn't give the VPOTUS the authority to just switch electors.

But, in saying that, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying Trump broke any laws by asking demanding Pence do it. There's no doubt in my mind that Trump believed he was cheated, and believed his lawyers when they told him Pence has the authority to do that. While I see no constitutional authority for the vp to do it, it's absurd to claim Trump broke any laws or attempted a coup. I think it was foolish to try it. It certainly made it easy for Democrats to convince LG et al that utter nonsense. And it's making it easy for the DOJ to get away with claiming it was a crime.

 

[jamil]

This is 100% wrong. It does not matter that the court cases said, the constitution is crystal clear on the point, state legislatures make election rules and no one else. That did not happen in most of the contested states.

That in itself is a court case that needs to be heard. There's no provision in the constitution that says if the VP thinks the certification was fraudulent the VP can just switch the slate of electors to the ones he prefers. The courts are the proper place for that. Trump lost the court cases he filed. If Trump had a good case and the courts threw it out, perhaps the fault was in the case brought.

 

[Ingomike]

Mike, we went through this ad naseum quite some time back... Trump's claims of a stolen election are unmitigated bull****.

And based upon that bull**** he wanted to be "installed" by Pence as President re-elect.

It's in ****ing writing for heavens' sake!

You are a piece of work on this topic with your Trump Derangement Syndrome. EVEN my lefty friends acknowledge that there were things wrong with the contested states that affected the outcome.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is 100% wrong. It does not matter that the court cases said, the constitution is crystal clear on the point, state legislatures make election rules and no one else. That did not happen in most of the contested states.

Which state(s) did not certify their electors in the manner prescribed by state law?

You don't care what the SCOTUS says the Constitution says/requires... okey, dokey then... I guess Trump literally wants to suspend the Constitution.

It's crystal clear that the rules were set, either by state legislatures (some of which you don't like) or similarly by their state Supreme Court (and left to stand by SCOTUS) which you similarly don't like... but the rules were set prior to election day.

And so what did Trump do?

Trump told his supporters DON'T VOTE until election day.

STUPID!!!! STUPID!!! STUPID!!!

What percent of his supporters fully intended on voting Nov 3rd, 2016, but could not because LIFE intervened?

FWIW, I ignored his STUPID advice and voted in person, early.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You are a piece of work on this topic with your Trump Derangement Syndrome. EVEN my lefty friends acknowledge that there were things wrong with the contested states that affected the outcome.

What state CHANGED the outcome?

We've been through this before, state-by-state, issue by issue... I'll say again BULL****!

Just an example, 10-20,000 dead people voted in Georgia.

BULL****!

It was actually THREE!!! Not three thousand, three, as in less than 4 but greater than 2.

AFFECTED by three votes, ok, sure. Changed the outcome... I'm still waiting for the Kracken...

 

[BugI02]

Which state certified for Biden did Trump actually win and by how much?

Which country 'won' the Vietnam War? If one 'competitor' affected the outcome of an entire project through questionable legal or unethical means, is the result really a 'win'

If you let me set the de facto rules of a competition, I'll win every time

I don't think you should cleave to the fiction that because a Secretary of State certifies an election as free and fair that it is necessarily so, that is election Chevron Deference. When that is done to [not]your guy, you may take a different view of the process

Do you truly believe, for example, that the Arizona election was free and fair and without duplicitous behavior from the 'winners'?

 

[BugI02]

I've looked at everything I could about the "stolen election" claims, back in Dec-Jan-Feb of 2020 when I wanted those claims to be true. They were not... not one shred of proof that it happened.

There is a difference in knowing something happened and being able to prove it. Even you should be able to see that dismissing so many cases (even many where Trump was not the plaintiff but another state was) on standing denies the granting of discovery and just makes gathering proof that much harder

Ask yourself WHY the question of whether voting machines were (mostly illegally) connected to the internet or whether there were ... irregularities ... in the counting algorithms or the counting procedures by officials who moved to exclude authorized observers to the process were fought so hard against allowing any examination of same

I can understand why a DeSantis fan would want to assert that, because he is supported by a few big money donors who are now seeking to tell him how to behave, there is no 'proof' that he is on a short leash and then fight tooth and nail against any investigation into the question, but that standard is corrosive when applied everywhere

One easy example being, there is no 'proof' that DeSantis will be able to replicate what he presided over in Florida at the national level

 

[BugI02]

This is a law, which is well enough. If the law was not followed it looks to me like Trump should go to court with such proof that the law was not followed. That doesn't give the VPOTUS the authority to just switch electors.

Most people are not saying that. What the VP CAN do is send the question of whether the certification is valid to the houses of congress for further action/review - and that is what should have been done in at least two, perhaps three cases

If you want to read the rest of the ECA, you'll have to look it up. The actual wording is in an obsolete typeface and spacing that requires copying any text one line at a time and pasting same. Trying to copy whole paragraphs just results in a garbled mess

 

[jamil]

Which state(s) did not certify their electors in the manner prescribed by state law?

You don't care what the SCOTUS says the Constitution says/requires... okey, dokey then... I guess Trump literally wants to suspend the Constitution.

It's crystal clear that the rules were set, either by state legislatures (some of which you don't like) or similarly by their state Supreme Court (and left to stand by SCOTUS) which you similarly don't like... but the rules were set prior to election day.

And so what did Trump do?

Trump told his supporters DON'T VOTE until election day.

STUPID!!!! STUPID!!! STUPID!!!

What percent of his supporters fully intended on voting Nov 3rd, 2016, but could not because LIFE intervened?

FWIW, I ignored his STUPID advice and voted in person, early.

Now, he and Republicans are telling people to vote early. It shows he learned something.

 

[foszoe]

I wonder if he's grabbed her yet.

 

[jamil]

You are a piece of work on this topic with your Trump Derangement Syndrome. EVEN my lefty friends acknowledge that there were things wrong with the contested states that affected the outcome.

What if it's not Trump Derangement Syndrome? What if he's no more biased than you are? Could it be that in your ardent support for Trump, you reject that Trump could have been wrong about anything? What evidence do you have that SD4L is deranged? You've also claimed I have TDS. It seems to me that when someone disagrees with you that something you deeply believe is true, they're deranged. What if you're wrong?

Here's a decent definition of deranged: unable to think or act in a normal or logical way especially because of severe mental illness : crazy or insane.

That describes the clown-world view of Trump, so there is a real TDS. It doesn't describe simply disagreeing with you. You have what you think is evidence for your point of view, and that's fine. He doesn't agree that your evidence proves what you think it does, or means what you think it means. That's simply a disagreement. Or does the D really mean Trump Disagreement Syndrome?

 

[jamil]

Most people are not saying that. What the VP CAN do is send the question of whether the certification is valid to the houses of congress for further action/review - and that is what should have been done in at least two, perhaps three cases

If you want to read the rest of the ECA, you'll have to look it up. The actual wording is in an obsolete typeface and spacing that requires copying any text one line at a time and pasting same. Trying to copy whole paragraphs just results in a garbled mess

I think that would have been reasonable. But that's not what Trump asked Pence to do, and Pence isn't anathema to Trumpers because he refused to question the validity of the certification. He's anathema because Trump asked him to switch certain slates of electors, certified by the states, and Pence refused to do it. So let's not go around saying the constitution authorizes the VP to do that, because it does not.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

There is a difference in knowing something happened and being able to prove it. Even you should be able to see that dismissing so many cases (even many where Trump was not the plaintiff but another state was) on standing denies the granting of discovery and just makes gathering proof that much harder

Wait, one state has standing in a different states' Presidential election!

I think you're using a "Book of Trump" Constitution because my copy decidedly leaves it up to EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE to decide their own electors. Nobody else. Period. Full stop.

Way back when, I looked at Trump's individual case filings in several states... it all had to do with rules in place prior to the election... in many cases, rules that were in place in 2016!!!!

Ask yourself WHY the question of whether voting machines were (mostly illegally) connected to the internet or whether there were ... irregularities ... in the counting algorithms or the counting procedures by officials who moved to exclude authorized observers to the process were fought so hard against allowing any examination of same

Been through that one too... bogus... there were the allotted number of Dem and GOP observers... the "additional" folks allowed in were "non-partisan" League of Women Voters, etc.

I can understand why a DeSantis fan would want to assert that, because he is supported by a few big money donors who are now seeking to tell him how to behave, there is no 'proof' that he is on a short leash and then fight tooth and nail against any investigation into the question, but that standard is corrosive when applied everywhere

Blah, blah, blah BULL****.

I said all of these same things ayyyyyy back in Dec 2020/Jan 2021... 2 1/2 years ago.

Has not a thing to do with DeSantis or any other candidate... just Trump's lies and BULL****.

One easy example being, there is no 'proof' that DeSantis will be able to replicate what he presided over in Florida at the national level

First, that has nothing to do with Trump hoodwinking y'all into believing his lies and BULL****.

Second, Trump had 4 years and DID NOT DO SO. We've got an embassy in Jerusalem, several hundred miles of new or improved border fence, no more ObamaCare mandate and a tax cut that expires in a couple years.

EVERYTHING else Trump did was "pen and phone" stuff that Biden erased at 12:01 pm on inauguration day.