Trump 2024 ???

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,732
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Two *s making something constitutional isn't my claim. Also, there exists a lively debate among Const. scholars as to the exact nature of the VP's role in certification as well as any allowances afforded to him to deviate from prior VP practices. One item in particular that even the anti-orange scholars have mentioned is the ability to send the disputed votes back to the states for verification. The states can simply attest to the certainty of the correct electors, send it back to the VP and be done with it. Pence, who claimed to believe in the need for election integrity assurances (Pence expressed concern about “the integrity of the 2020 election,” citing “significant” and “troubling” voting irregularities in an op-ed for the conservative publication Daily Signal.) didn't even ask for reassurance - from anyone. And did Trump really say, "Mike Pence, I want you to overturn the election!" ? (As Pence claims...) Or did Trump say, "Mike Pence, I demand you fight for obtaining the correct electors!" I don't know; neither do you. I believe interpretation of any edict from Trump to Pence is subject interpretation. I interpret Mike Pence's claims to be self-serving.

    I suspect that if you're being told that there's a lively debate among constitutional scholars as to the role the VPOTUS has in certification, they may be lying to you.

    1691438850372.png

    The only occurrences for any version of "certify" including "certificate" appearing in the constitution is in Article 2 section 1, which deals with the electors, and the 12th Amendment (as above), which replaces a portion of Article 2 section 1. Also, in the ratification section of the Constitution, which dealt with the initial exercise. If the VPOTUS has any powers implied here, they must be hidden in a penumbra even more obscure than the deep shadows of nothingness where SCOTUS found the justification for R v W. Which is to say, it's not there.

    The VPOTUS, as the president of the senate, gets the votes, signed, certified, and directed to him from the electors. His role is to preside over a joint session of congress to count the electors' votes. You guys keep saying certification. The only certification in the constitution is the certification that electors do when they sign the lists required by the constitution. Now I am not claiming to be a constitutional scholar. But if I am misreading this, you'll need to point out exactly where the constitution gives the VPOTUS any authority to certify anything, much less change the slate of electors, or have any other power that could possibly have made Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    Two *s making something constitutional isn't my claim. Also, there exists a lively debate among Const. scholars as to the exact nature of the VP's role in certification as well as any allowances afforded to him to deviate from prior VP practices. One item in particular that even the anti-orange scholars have mentioned is the ability to send the disputed votes back to the states for verification.
    There are scholars who say the Congress as a whole can do that... Only Eastwood and maybe a few others assert that the VP can do it on his own.

    The states can simply attest to the certainty of the correct electors, send it back to the VP and be done with it.
    Each state already certified the electors for each state. Read Eastman's memo... by "not counting" those seven states, Trump is re-elected. Period. End of story.

    There was no sending them back to the states for if they are "double-dog sure" about it.

    Pence, who claimed to believe in the need for election integrity assurances (Pence expressed concern about “the integrity of the 2020 election,” citing “significant” and “troubling” voting irregularities in an op-ed for the conservative publication Daily Signal.) didn't even ask for reassurance - from anyone. And did Trump really say, "Mike Pence, I want you to overturn the election!" ? (As Pence claims...) Or did Trump say, "Mike Pence, I demand you fight for obtaining the correct electors!" I don't know; neither do you. I believe interpretation of any edict from Trump to Pence is subject interpretation. I interpret Mike Pence's claims to be self-serving.
    Ummm... read the Eastman memo (both versions). The "constitutional scholar" who said Pence had the power.... there was no "ensuring the integrity of the election"... it was "don't count the 6-7 states and Trump wins re-election."

    It is literally written in the memorandum.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    I'm reposting this... Eastman's memo... the "constitutional scholar" who said Pence had the power, solely as President of the Senate Pro Temp... to reject state certified electors... and not count them.

    Please point out the part of the memo that has those going back to the states for clarification? There is none... all roads lead to "Trump re-elected as President" and Pence gavels the session to close.

    1691440345033.png
     

    Ingomike

    Top Hand
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    29,085
    113
    North Central
    Which state certified for Biden did Trump actually win and by how much?

    Which factual claim did Trump assert in any court that was not investigated?

    Sure would be, if it happened.

    But what Trump claims on Truth Social (or previously on Twitter) and what he files in court are two VASTLY different things.

    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.

    My verdict between what he says/posts versus files in court... he's spouting a bunch of lies he knows are false. JMO.


    So? That does make his assertions true.

    Please name one state that was "stolen" from Trump and what the proof is? Hit me with your best shot!
    You never give a damn about the unconstitutional actions that were put upon the country by the left, but oh boy look what Trump did…
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,732
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Which state certified for Biden did Trump actually win and by how much?
    The only honest answer to that is, well, would have won if Democrats hadn't cheated. And we've been through all the claims and argued about Kraken and nonsense and what underhanded actions the so-called "Cabol" actually did to defeat Trump. I'm not inclined to believe the Kraken, but there's evidence enough that some key states overrode their own election laws under the guise of covid policies to help Biden win.

    But. Saying that TPTB did that does not answer your two-part question, and that's the question that would need to be answered. And even then the constitution does not grant the VPOTUS power to do any certification of electors or electors' votes. His role is essentially the MC of the show.

    Please name one state that was "stolen" from Trump and what the proof is? Hit me with your best shot!
    Well. See. There's this Lawyer named Rudy. And this other Lawyer named Sydney. And they concocted reported on this thing they called "Kraken". That when released would destroy claims that the election was fair. It's gonna come out any day now. Any day. The Kracken will drop and Trump will be vindicated. I also heard on INGO that Trump will be reinstated as POTUS. Because that's in article 43 section 105 of the US constitution. Presidents who lose elections can be reinstated if Kraken is found. Any day now.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,732
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You never give a damn about the unconstitutional actions that were put upon the country by the left, but oh boy look what Trump did…

    Now hold on. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement that there were any unconstitutional actions. Maybe you should resolve that first before claiming that someone doesn't care about the thing you claim is true that they don't believe is true. There's a big difference between not caring about something and not agreeing that something is true.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    You never give a damn about the unconstitutional actions that were put upon the country by the left, but oh boy look what Trump did…
    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!
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,654
    113
    central indiana
    The authority for the VP to resolve elector disputes is not settled. There are conflicting views among persons far more knowledgeable about the constitution than anyone posting here. I randomly picked four articles that say such. I make no claim as to which viewpoint is right, only that it isn't settled. Note that two of the below were written prior to the election and therefore their debates are academic without regard to how the election and vote counting actually transpired.


    "We recognize that attributing some substantive power in vote-count disputes to the vice president is controversial."

    "Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states that he cannot accept their certified electors because they were not legally appointed due to overwhelming evidence of election fraud.
    Raiklin contends that the U.S. Constitution grants the Vice President the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.
    "

    "But what happens if a state provides a second slate of electors named by its legislature or a state’s governor refuses to sign the state’s election certificate in a dispute over ballot counting? Ned Foley, a constitutional election scholar from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, has written extensively about such scenarios.
    The procedures for handling a disputed presidential election that reaches Congress are regrettably, and embarrassingly, deficient,” Foley wrote in 2019 for the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which Foley calls “astonishingly messy,” could lead to competing interpretations within Congress of what actions it can take on January 6. Foley also notes there are some historical arguments parts of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that are unconstitutional and there could a role for the Supreme Court to settle these disputes before January 20, 2021, when the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires the new President to take the oath of office."

    "The check on error or fraud in the count is that the Vice President’s activities are to be done publicly, “in the presence” of Congress, wrote Yoo and Delahunty, and if “counting” the electors’ votes is the Vice President’s responsibility, then “the inextricably intertwined responsibility for judging the validity of those votes must also be his."
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    "Constitutional lawyer Ivan Raiklin on Dec. 22 sent out a tweet urging Vice President Mike Pence to inform the secretaries of state in six contested states that he cannot accept their certified electors because they were not legally appointed due to overwhelming evidence of election fraud.
    Raiklin contends that the U.S. Constitution grants the Vice President the power to overturn a manifestly fraudulent election.
    "
    There were no contested state electors. Each state certified their electors according to the laws of that state.

    "But what happens if a state provides a second slate of electors named by its legislature or a state’s governor refuses to sign the state’s election certificate in a dispute over ballot counting? Ned Foley, a constitutional election scholar from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, has written extensively about such scenarios.
    No state provided a second slate of electors. No state official responsible for certifying the election results refused to do so.

    Rounding up a bunch of folks in a state to sign a certification document doesn't make them a slate from the state... only a fraudulent state.

    The procedures for handling a disputed presidential election that reaches Congress are regrettably, and embarrassingly, deficient,” Foley wrote in 2019 for the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, which Foley calls “astonishingly messy,” could lead to competing interpretations within Congress of what actions it can take on January 6. Foley also notes there are some historical arguments parts of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that are unconstitutional and there could a role for the Supreme Court to settle these disputes before January 20, 2021, when the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires the new President to take the oath of office."

    There was no dispute in the electors. Each state certified their electors. TRUMP may have disputed them, but no state did.

    "The check on error or fraud in the count is that the Vice President’s activities are to be done publicly, “in the presence” of Congress, wrote Yoo and Delahunty, and if “counting” the electors’ votes is the Vice President’s responsibility, then “the inextricably intertwined responsibility for judging the validity of those votes must also be his."
    There is no provision in the Constitution or 12th amendment for the VP/Senate President to refuse to count electors certified by the various states. He verifies they are the legitimate slate CERTIFIED by the state. The only fraud in the electors were the fraudulent ones Trump trump'ed up... who were NOT certified according to the laws of the state.
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    if all of this is still not settled then who's actions were right and who was wrong?
    Really, in the end, it's for the voters to decide. While the GOP may turn a blind eye to Trump's attempted power grab, and Trump may lie all he wants about his intentions, the non-partisan's in the general election can read...

    "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected."

    Trump loses in a landslide, both popular and, the important one, electoral votes. He takes down the House and Senate with him. Dems stack the SCOTUS. Do away with the filibuster. Institute nation-wide automatic mail-in ballots. Full 9 month abortion... etc. etc.

    Trump will not save us...
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,392
    149
    Southside Indy
    There were no contested state electors. Each state certified their electors according to the laws of that state.
    But IIRC, some states "changed" their laws (or had them ignored at the behest of the state's AG or SOS) at the last minute to allow for longer time tables for voting and certification, did they not?
     

    SheepDog4Life

    Natural Gray Man
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    May 14, 2016
    5,320
    113
    SW IN
    But IIRC, some states "changed" their laws (or had them ignored at the behest of the state's AG or SOS) at the last minute to allow for longer time tables for voting and certification, did they not?
    I recall the PA Supreme Court extended the mail-in ballots postmarked on election day to be received by the Friday after the election, instead of curtailing at midnight on election day, due to all of the USPS brouhahah... which I disagree with.

    But IIRC, this was a month and a half before the election and the SCOTUS reviewed weeks prior to the election day...
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,732
    113
    Gtown-ish
    The authority for the VP to resolve elector disputes is not settled.
    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.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,392
    149
    Southside Indy
    I recall the PA Supreme Court extended the mail-in ballots postmarked on election day to be received by the Friday after the election, instead of curtailing at midnight on election day, due to all of the USPS brouhahah... which I disagree with.

    But IIRC, this was weeks prior to the election day...

    I don't think it was only PA though. Not just the extended time periods, but the radical changes to mail-in ballots vs. absentee ballots, etc.. That's how we ended up with "election season" instead of "election day".
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,638
    149
    Really, in the end, it's for the voters to decide. While the GOP may turn a blind eye to Trump's attempted power grab, and Trump may lie all he wants about his intentions, the non-partisan's in the general election can read...

    "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected."

    Trump loses in a landslide, both popular and, the important one, electoral votes. He takes down the House and Senate with him. Dems stack the SCOTUS. Do away with the filibuster. Institute nation-wide automatic mail-in ballots. Full 9 month abortion... etc. etc.

    Trump will not save us...
    I guess what I'm getting at is that while I am by no means a big fan and defender of Pence some are calling him a spineless coward for not going along with team Trump's version of what they claimed to be right and that is he had such authority to do as they wanted him to do.

    How is it that they can claim to be right, and Pence was wrong for doing what he believed when the matter is still unsettled?
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,732
    113
    Gtown-ish
    But IIRC, some states "changed" their laws (or had them ignored at the behest of the state's AG or SOS) at the last minute to allow for longer time tables for voting and certification, did they not?

    Something like that happened in Pennsylvania as I recall, and it went to their Supreme Court and they blessed it. Trump exhausted his legal means to contest the election and came up short. So then, 1) there’s no reasonable legal basis to claim fraud, and 2) even if they did, the VP doesn’t really have any authority anyway.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    104,392
    149
    Southside Indy
    Something like that happened in Pennsylvania as I recall, and it went to their Supreme Court and they blessed it. Trump exhausted his legal means to contest the election and came up short. So then, 1) there’s no reasonable legal basis to claim fraud, and 2) even if they did, the VP doesn’t really have any authority anyway.
    I was thinking there were some shenanigans in MI and AZ too, but I may be misremembering.
     

    DragonGunner

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 14, 2010
    5,574
    113
    N. Central IN
    I guess what I'm getting at is that while I am by no means a big fan and defender of Pence some are calling him a spineless coward for not going along with team Trump's version of what they claimed to be right and that is he had such authority to do as they wanted him to do.

    How is it that they can claim to be right, and Pence was wrong for doing what he believed when the matter is still unsettled?
    He was a spineless coward for not being man enough to walk into Trumps office and tell him what he was going to do. Instead he refused to say anything but already knew what he was going to do. Then smiled as he shook Pelosi hand.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom