Reply With QuoteNo thanks. I don't watch or listen to anything from Fox Entertainment. Fox is a joke.
| Search Fishin.com |
Senior Member
It is from FOX news so some of you folks won't even sniff it, but if you're interested in a little history, a little law and a good explanation of what is wrong with the process, this is a GREAT little article.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the...y-transform-it
It discusses a whole lot of stuff as to the ambiguities that exist, why some folks thought Pence has more authority than he really does, and what congress can do about it.
I doubt they fix anything, but maybe.
Later,
Geo
Senior Member
No thanks. I don't watch or listen to anything from Fox Entertainment. Fox is a joke.
Senior Member
My reading of this yields multiple claims about ambiguities, but not one specific detail. Would have been helpful to quote some text from the ECA the author (or Susan Collins) considers problematic.Originally Posted by GeoFisher
Senior Member
\
* Trump thinking Pence had power to do anything but open an envelope.......problematic
* Nixon unilaterally deciding to toss votes to Kennedy instead of himself.........problematic
* Colorado not holding an election and assigning the electors themselves in 1870 or whatever.....problematic
In all 3 of the above cases.....there were not clear answers. IN the 3rd case, they created the answers we have that were "used" in the previous 2.
Come on man....Pay attention.
You either did not read the article or do not understand, the process........
Not picking, but IMHO, the article was pretty **** clear.
Later,
Geo
Senior Member
Details for point 3:
Tilden captured the popular vote in 1876. He bested Hayes by three whole percentage points and 252,000 ballots out of 4.4 million votes cast. But the aforementioned issues with electors from Oregon, South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana spurred Congress to create a commission to settle who actually captured the White House before inauguration day on March 4, 1877. The commission awarded the presidency to Hayes. The panel finally determined that Hayes scored one more electoral vote than Tilden.
One of the more intriguing tales of the election of 1876 stems from Colorado and its three electoral votes. Colorado joined the union in the summer of 1876. The state lacked the wherewithal to conduct a presidential election. So the new Colorado state legislature awarded the Centennial State’s three electoral votes to Hayes – without ever hearing directly from the voters.
And never mind that Congress ultimately declared Hayes the victor by a sole electoral vote.
Details for point 2:
Frankly, the role of the vice president is up for debate, regardless of what Quayle told Pence – and what Pence did or didn’t do. There is actually a historical precedent for the vice president to interject himself into the proceedings.
Such was the case in 1961. Vice President Richard Nixon presided over a Joint Session that certified his own defeat as the GOP presidential nominee to President John F. Kennedy. The election of 1960 was Hawaii’s first presidential election, having joined the union in 1959. Hawaii didn’t pull "a Colorado," ala 1876. But it did send in an initial, incorrect slate of electoral votes in favor of Nixon. However, after a recount, Hawaii’s electoral votes revealed Kennedy as the winner.
Scholars argue that technically, Nixon should have awarded the initial slate of Hawaii electors to himself. But, in what may have been a magnanimous gesture, simply because Kennedy prevailed in the overall election, Nixon presented the Aloha State’s three electoral votes to the senator from Massachusetts.
However, the Hawaii example raises a key question and exposes the major flaw in the Electoral Count Act.
And we can all read about point 1:.....it was all over the place.
Senior Member
Geo, none of those meet the criteria I objected to.
Those are symptoms, not causes. I said it would have been helpful to cite some supposedly ambiguous text from the Act itself. Primary sources are the key to informed debate.
Moveon liked this post
Senior Member
Good GOD man..........
A link to the freakin act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
And the TEXT of the act
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, 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, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate 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 so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently 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 regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. 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 by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
I could point out the EXACT freaking pieces of this that are ambiguous, but I'm not too sure you know the meaning.
Sorry, It is folks like you that parse the crap out of ****, trying to find anything you can to TEAR something down.
Don't like the post, don't fucking read it.
Quite simple.
Senior Member
Bruh you okay? You really gotta resort to the ad hominems?
I didn't say anything one way or another about whether or not the act was ambiguous. As a journalism guy, I said it would have been a much better article if it had included some specifics rather than just some statements.
Posting Permissions