Pence heckled. Called a traitor

jwamplerusa

High drag, low speed...
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Feb 21, 2018
1,019
113
Zionsville
The Constitution states in part"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof". The critical element being the legislature thereof. If the electors which were certified were not those who each states legislature had authorized and specified through that state's laws, they were not valid electors. At the very minimum where two sets of electors were presented there should have been clear documented resolution of which electors met the state legislatures requirements to be electors.

Words mean things and in the constitution each word can be critical to an understanding of the intent and the basis for all subservient law.

I don't know all the details, but I have seen enough references to two slates of electors from multiple states to know that there was a controversy. Couple that with an inability by my elected servants to stand up before their citizenry and defend their positions; but rather hide from their citizenry and cower under their desks only to reconvene in the dead of night to certify the electors of the several states is suspicious.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the real problem is a matter of confidence and trust. Trust and confidence is one of the most precious things among men. To undermine that trust and confidence for expediency, or worse, is unconscionable.

Take the necessary time, require those states with multiple electors presented to resolve which set of electors are certified by the state legislature. Not some election official, not some employee, not the governor of the state, the state legislature!
 

LynnMCF

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
May 11, 2013
14
3
Knox County, Indiana
The Constitution states in part"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof". The critical element being the legislature thereof. If the electors which were certified were not those who each states legislature had authorized and specified through that state's laws, they were not valid electors. At the very minimum where two sets of electors were presented there should have been clear documented resolution of which electors met the state legislatures requirements to be electors.

Words mean things and in the constitution each word can be critical to an understanding of the intent and the basis for all subservient law.

I don't know all the details, but I have seen enough references to two slates of electors from multiple states to know that there was a controversy. Couple that with an inability by my elected servants to stand up before their citizenry and defend their positions; but rather hide from their citizenry and cower under their desks only to reconvene in the dead of night to certify the electors of the several states is suspicious.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the real problem is a matter of confidence and trust. Trust and confidence is one of the most precious things among men. To undermine that trust and confidence for expediency, or worse, is unconscionable.

Take the necessary time, require those states with multiple electors presented to resolve which set of electors are certified by the state legislature. Not some election official, not some employee, not the governor of the state, the state legislature!
The several states' legislators through the legislative process give that power to oversee elections either to some state board or to the office of Secretary of State. For a legislature to abandon that process and put up their own set of electors they would first have to reverse their legislation delegating that power to state officials.

That's why there is a delay of around 2 months between the election and the certification of electors. The state legislatures would have to effect a change of law and the have a completely NEW audited count within that time.

There certainly were plenty of lawsuits, most thrown out by Republican appointed judges, at least one appointed by Trump himself.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
8,391
113
North Central
What part of Pence accepting the certification of each state's vote wasn't recognizing the authority of each state over its election process?

For Pence to have ignored that he would have deferred to Trump and those few Republicans who tried to stop the Constitutional process.
Did you read anything posted?

There were competing slates of electors, both claiming to be the product of the legislature, the body the constitution recognizes to determine the slates of electors.

Certification is a bureaucratic process, not a constitutional process.

Pence to decide which slate to accept is a decision and an action. He should have sent it on to allow the next constitutional step to occur. He chose the bureaucratic type status quo the democrats and chamber o republicans would support.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
27,288
113
What part of Pence accepting the certification of each state's vote wasn't recognizing the authority of each state over its election process?

For Pence to have ignored that he would have deferred to Trump and those few Republicans who tried to stop the Constitutional process.
The Constitution specifically assigns authority over elections to the STATE LEGISLATURES, NOT to the respective Secretaries of State.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
27,288
113
The several states' legislators through the legislative process give that power to oversee elections either to some state board or to the office of Secretary of State. For a legislature to abandon that process and put up their own set of electors they would first have to reverse their legislation delegating that power to state officials.

That's why there is a delay of around 2 months between the election and the certification of electors. The state legislatures would have to effect a change of law and the have a completely NEW audited count within that time.

There certainly were plenty of lawsuits, most thrown out by Republican appointed judges, at least one appointed by Trump himself.
Those lawsuits were dismissed on standing, NOT on review of evidence. Standing was intended to keep me from suing someone for something they did to you, not for a court to arbitrarily declare that if something approaching half the population of a state is harmed, then no one has standing to challenge it in court.
 
Last edited:

churchmouse

I still care....Really
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
182   0   0
Dec 7, 2011
183,013
0
Speedway area
I disagree, but lets say for the sake of argument Pence did have the power you think he did. Do you think his inaction was due to ignorance of his power or fear of...? I simply don't see the motive for Pence to undermine Trump, if he had the power to do otherwise.
That’s where your opinion of this and mine do not cross. Yes he did have that power. Yet he was either told to or chose to ignore it.
 

BugI02

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 4, 2013
22,536
149
Columbus, OH
Pence was every bit the suckup to trump throughout the Presidency, which seemed to be highly valued by Trump.
This is just throwing shade at Trump. Pence was a subordinate, he does not set policy any more than the cabinet members or heads of departments do. There is only one commander-in-chief

That being said, do you have or have you ever had subordinates? Did you think proper behavior on their part if they disagreed with you was to raise the issue in private or brace you publicly before staff or the board? If they raised their objections in private and then got on board if they could not change your mind, did you consider them properly subordinate or suckups?
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
8,391
113
North Central
Those lawsuits were dismissed on standing, NOT on review of evidence. Standing was intended to keep me from saying someone for something they did to you, not for a court to arbitrarily declare that if something approaching half the population of a state is harmed, then no one has standing to challenge it in court.

I contend that the concept of standing may be unconstitutional.

So if Joe hit your truck, I sue joe because he hit your truck, I can prove joe hit your truck, I cannot show damages to me, case over.

Standing is just a legal shortcut to that conclusion that is being abused, like so much today.
 

BugI02

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 4, 2013
22,536
149
Columbus, OH
What part of Pence accepting the certification of each state's vote wasn't recognizing the authority of each state over its election process?

For Pence to have ignored that he would have deferred to Trump and those few Republicans who tried to stop the Constitutional process.
The authority to certify each states's vote rests with that state's legislature, not its executive branch, by specific language in the constitution

By failing to accept the electors appointed by the legislatures, where more than one slate existed, Pence violated the constitution. But you know that
 

Kutnupe14

Troll Emeritus
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
40,294
149
Those lawsuits were dismissed on standing, NOT on review of evidence. Standing was intended to keep me from suing someone for something they did to you, not for a court to arbitrarily declare that if something approaching half the population of a state is harmed, then no one has standing to challenge it in court.
Actually they were dismissed for lack of standing, lack of evidence or withdrawn. I assume your belief is that that there was some vast conspiracy between the numerous cases (with both Rs and Ds on the bench) that prevented these cases from getting their due rather than the cases simply lacking merit or proper forum? You know, many of the dismissed cases were done so “without prejudice,” meaning they could be re-filed.... and yet they weren’t.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
8,391
113
North Central
Actually they were dismissed for lack of standing, lack of evidence or withdrawn. I assume your belief is that that there was some vast conspiracy between the numerous cases (with both Rs and Ds on the bench) that prevented these cases from getting their due rather than the cases simply lacking merit or proper forum? You know, many of the dismissed cases were done so “without prejudice,” meaning they could be re-filed.... and yet they weren’t.

If cases that were decided on the merits only are looked at Trump side won 70% or so of them.

I'm sure it gives you great comfort that the system gave you what you wanted and voted for...
 

Kutnupe14

Troll Emeritus
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jan 13, 2011
40,294
149
If cases that were decided on the merits only are looked at Trump side won 70% or so of them.

I'm sure it gives you great comfort that the system gave you what you wanted and voted for...
70% ‘eh? Where you getting that figure?
 

DadSmith

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Oct 21, 2018
5,509
113
Ripley county
I disagree, but lets say for the sake of argument Pence did have the power you think he did. Do you think his inaction was due to ignorance of his power or fear of...? I simply don't see the motive for Pence to undermine Trump, if he had the power to do otherwise.
$$$$$$ seems to go a long way with a politicians ideals now days.
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
27,288
113
There is nothing new in that
What IS new is that previously when people, organizations, or companies bought influence, there was a benefit for the buyer but it didn't affect most people. Now, in the age of people like Soros, Bloomberg, and Gates, they are buying influence to directly exert control over most people.
 

KLB

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Sep 12, 2011
15,135
77
Porter County
What IS new is that previously when people, organizations, or companies bought influence, there was a benefit for the buyer but it didn't affect most people. Now, in the age of people like Soros, Bloomberg, and Gates, they are buying influence to directly exert control over most people.
I disagree that it didn't affect most people back then. I do agree that was not necessarily the result though. It was more targeted towards gain for the briber.

You are right about those you name though. For some reason they feel it necessary to use their wealth to try to force their beliefs upon everyone else.
 
Top Bottom