- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pence Booed and Heckled At Faith & Freedom Conference
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:22 pm to half cajun
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:22 pm to half cajun
Ok pal, explain that one?
1
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:28 pm to Sentrius
quote:
It's going to be funny watching Trump supporters and this board's reaction when the Kamala, the sleazy hoe, tries to overturn Ron DeSantis's electoral college victory in 2024.
And you’re going to be doing the same contrarian schtick. Good job bud doing nothing about it. Again.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:29 pm to DaTruth7
What’s to explain. My comment was fairly self-explanatory. Pence’s role that day did not allow him to do anything other than what he did: certify the votes of each state that had already certified their winners. That anyone thought he had another role to play shows a complete ignorance of what he was there to do. That he was bood is a complete turn-off to all normal citizens The rest of the country is looking at these kind of people that would boo him as complete lunatics, the kind you would never entrust to run the government.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:38 pm to half cajun
quote:
certifying the votes already certified by the states.
Yeah, each state certified its own electoral votes. But how are they officially added up to see who gets to 270? The Constitution provides that the President of the Senate shall open all the certificates at which time the votes are then counted.
If the President of the Senate entered the chamber and declared that he refuses to open and count the votes, then what? Some random person volunteers to add up the numbers?
No, the VP is the only individual who is authorized by the Constitution to do that, and if VP refused it would cause a much more complicated situation than you and some others believe. If it isn't done in strict accordance with the very clear provisions of the Constitution, then it isn't valid. The final, official tally must come through the Vice President only.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:46 pm to davyjones
Yes but he only had the authority to tally the votes already certified by the states. It’s like you people can’t see one step ahead. Once he goes against the constitution and refuses to do what it says then the next Vice President can do the same. And where are we? Then the rule of law means nothing and we are Venezuela.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:51 pm to half cajun
Most normal citizens, i.e. most blue collar working American citizens, are paying $1-2 more for a gallon of gas, inflation is starting to run through the roof on any type of consumer product (assuming they can find what they are even needing because of global supply chain “issues”), the cost of food is up 10-20%, and if you are white you are being told you are the devil. “Normal citizens” are starting to get more and more upset. The details of exactly how the certification of presidential votes are handled is not something a working person knows all about. The activist twitter folks do. But not people that have a lot of real life irons in the fire. It is no surprise that people are upset with Pence. His political career is effectively over in my opinion.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 10:59 pm to half cajun
quote:
Once he goes against the constitution and refuses to do what it says then the next Vice President can do the same.
Well, now see that's a different issue altogether. But that issue doesn't necessarily preclude the VP from doing so in the first instance. Had he done so it would have had to head to federal court in an effort to force the VP to carry out his Constitutional duty, but that's where there could have been some sort of showdown, i.e. VP putting a case on as to the specific reasons for the refusal to tally the states' votes. In theory, of course.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I am a conservative
Sweet troll
This post was edited on 6/18/21 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:01 pm to captdalton
I don’t disagree with any of the negative consequences you’ve mentioned. And it may be true that citizens won’t quibble with the niceties of the rule of law when considering who to vote for. But as a conservative, the rule of law should be paramount. And conservatives should recognize that. Concede defeat and then try to win on the merits. This stolen election nonsense is a dud and makes citizens, especially the younger generation think they can’t entrust you with running the government.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:04 pm to davyjones
It had already been litigated in the states! You were asking him to defy the state and federal courts. What’s conservative about that?!
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:22 pm to half cajun
No, I'm just throwing out a possibility that I do happen to think could've been done, whether one would be for it or against, philosophically speaking. But the exact cause of action would be, specifically, suit to enforce Vice Presidential duty under the Constitution. Would likely be filed by highest ranking Den Senator or Speaker of the House or perhaps even Biden campaign itself. But the interesting part could've or would've been the discovery process, which I don't see why such litigation wouldn't warrant an order of discovery just like any other litigation. That's where things could've gotten interesting because there was, to my knowledge, no case involving election challenges that made it to the discovery stage. And there'd have been no early dismissal of this particular case.
Just spitballing here, that's really all.
Just spitballing here, that's really all.
Posted on 6/18/21 at 11:55 pm to davyjones
quote:
But the interesting part could've or would've been the discovery process, which I don't see why such litigation wouldn't warrant an order of discovery just like any other litigation.
No discovery is required because there is no question of fact in dispute. It's a legal question. Does the presdient of the Senate has the authority to refuse to accept electors certifified by the respective states.
Don't come up with this dance around crap like the V.P. saying he's going fishing.
The real question is can the V.P. refuse to accept certified electors. Yes or no.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:00 am to davyjones
I appreciate your spitballing. But my opinion is that we can’t or shouldn’t want any such thing. The law is clear on what should happen in certification and once you start messing with that then we become a country such as Venezuela where the rule of law doesn’t matter. As much as Trump supporters would wish otherwise, the 2020 election went according to established procedures even though voting was more lenient voting in the past. The solution is to gain more votes, not to suddenly claim you were cheated. If conservatives want to win going forward they need to stop with this nonsense. Conservatives are supposed to believe in the rule of law. They need to start acting like it, even if their preferred candidate didn’t win.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:01 am to half cajun
quote:
we become a country such as Venezuela where the rule of law doesn’t matter.
We are already there.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:06 am to CGSC Lobotomy
I agree with almost nothing Biden has done but it’s you Trump supporters who would have us be Venezuela. The rule of law matters or it doesn’t. All I hear is you Trump supporters throwing out the rule of law.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 12:18 am to texridder
quote:
No discovery is required because there is no question of fact in dispute. It's a legal question. Does the presdient of the Senate has the authority to refuse to accept electors certifified by the respective states.
Does the Vice President of the U.S. have a duty to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States? Because what's to say he couldn't refuse to complete the Constitutionally prescribed duty due to his strong belief that some of states' certifications were acquired in violation of the Constitution or perhaps even in violation of some other law(s)? Could the Secretary of State for a given state refuse to certify his or her state's electoral results if he were convinced that there was improper or illegal or unconstitutional acts in compiling those results? I suspect that state official has the authority and duty to refuse illegitimate votes if it's been called to his attention and he's sufficiently convinced of it.
What's the difference here?
Posted on 6/19/21 at 1:55 am to half cajun
quote:
the 2020 election went according to established procedures
Lolzy
Posted on 6/19/21 at 1:59 am to davyjones
The VP of the US, should he refuse to announce the EV's that have already been approved by each state and cast in the Electoral College, would simply be replaced by the President Pro Tempore who would oversee said announcing. (The actual counting is done by the Secretary of the Senate.) One person (the VP) cannot obstruct the Constitutional process of our Presidential election.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 2:06 am to GeorgeWest
Maybe so, but while we're essentially guessing, I'm gonna go with they can't do that. The Constitution says verbatim that the President of the Senate SHALL conduct the proceedings. Now, I will acknowledge that it doesn't specifically say the "Vice President shall" but rather the "President of the Senate shall". To me that can indeed mean the President Pro Tempore, but if the VP is in the house, he/she is the President of Senate at that time. Again, the Constitution is very explicit in its direction on this, and it does not make any mention of what would happen in the event of a situation wherein VP is in house but declares a halt to the proceedings.
Now, if there exists a Senate rule directly on point prescribing what you're saying there, then of course I yield. But short of that, I've got to come down on the side of Senate can't pass a rule on the fly that essentially amends the Constitution.
Now, if there exists a Senate rule directly on point prescribing what you're saying there, then of course I yield. But short of that, I've got to come down on the side of Senate can't pass a rule on the fly that essentially amends the Constitution.
Posted on 6/19/21 at 2:34 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Pence Booed and Heckled At Faith & Freedom Conference
as he should be. it is what it is.
the man sold his soul.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News