Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

The Pennsylvania electors were not selected per the legislature therefore are just as unconstitutional as any alternative slates, which should have triggered a case to be adjudicated by the courts.

You want to explain that one?

 

[jamil]

So, go with the ridicule again I see. I guess it beats listening to you drone on about how carefully you weighed all sides of the discussion

You're complaining that I made a joke about Kamala giving Pence a Knobby in exchange for certifying her slate of electors? That's the only thing I see there that was anything close to ridicule.

You oversimplify. An alternate slate of electors would need to be selected by the legislature of the state involved, and for this example that would only happen if the legislature believed there was fraud sufficient to change the popular vote outcome in their state AND an official not the legislature certified the election results. That then could be an illegitimate slate of electors and the legislature could advance its own alternate slate

Did that happen in Trump's case?

Only then would it be possible for the VP to have an alternate slate of electors to recognize. He doesn't select the alternate electors, he only rules that one slate is illegitimately certified according to what the legislature of the involved state asserts. Congress then rules on the question of which slate is legitimate

To me it seems a mechanism designed to mitigate against fraud not create it, unless you think somehow the state legislature doesn't accurately reflect the people

What did Trump expect Pence to do? How was Trump's alternative slate of electors chosen?

 

[BugI02]

You want to explain that one?

Pennsylvania says Secretary of State certifies slate of electors, for example

Constitution says state legislature certifies slate of electors

If the state legislature chooses to assert that authority and puts forth its own slate of electors, what does the constitution say about that?


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, ...

Constitution should prevail, although litigation would be certain

 

[foszoe]

So, go with the ridicule again I see. I guess it beats listening to you drone on about how carefully you weighed all sides of the discussion

You oversimplify. An alternate slate of electors would need to be selected by the legislature of the state involved, and for this example that would only happen if the legislature believed there was fraud sufficient to change the popular vote outcome in their state AND an official not the legislature certified the election results. That then could be an illegitimate slate of electors and the legislature could advance its own alternate slate

Only then would it be possible for the VP to have an alternate slate of electors to recognize. He doesn't select the alternate electors, he only rules that one slate is illegitimately certified according to what the legislature of the involved state asserts. Congress then rules on the question of which slate is legitimate

To me it seems a mechanism designed to mitigate against fraud not create it, unless you think somehow the state legislature doesn't accurately reflect the people

If it's government, I don't trust it.

I mean if a democratic legislature did something like this...

 

[BugI02]

What did Trump expect Pence to do? How was Trump's alternative slate of electors chosen?

I don't believe the alternate slate in PA was chosen unambiguously by the legislature. but I thought the point in contention was whether Pence did or did not have the authority to reject the SoS certified slate. How it could be constitutionally legit was a hypothetical. You seem to be arguing Pence could not have rejected the proferred slate and others seem to be suggesting Trump thought Pence could 'install' him as president, which is bull****

I think Trump wanted to force the court's hand to take up the case by presenting them with a situation they could not ignore

 

[Ingomike]

I don't believe the alternate slate in PA was chosen unambiguously by the legislature. but I thought the point in contention was whether Pence did or did not have the authority to reject the SoS certified slate. How it could be constitutionally legit was a hypothetical. You seem to be arguing Pence could not have rejected the proferred slate and others seem to be suggesting Trump thought Pence could 'install' him as president, which is bull****

I think Trump wanted to force the court's hand to take up the case by presenting them with a situation they could not ignore

BINGO…

 

[KG1]

I think Trump wanted to force the court's hand to take up the case by presenting them with a situation they could not ignore

it was a situation alright. The only thing that made it to the court were the trials of the Capitol rioters. I will grant that I believe the initial plan was for Trump to rally protestors at the Capitol to bring the issue to attention, which is perfectly fine, I don't think his intention was for it to go as far as it did with hooligan rioters breaking into the Capitol and interrupting the proceedings in order to force the courts hand. If that was the plan all along then it was a stupid plan that never had a chance to work,

 

[jamil]

Pennsylvania says Secretary of State certifies slate of electors, for example

Constitution says state legislature certifies slate of electors

If the state legislature chooses to assert that authority and puts forth its own slate of electors, what does the constitution say about that?


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, ...

Constitution should prevail, although litigation would be certain

Hmm. That statement highlighted in red doesn't say what you said it says.

The constitution says that the way electors are appointed is up to the state's legislature to decide. That's kind of what "such Manner as" means. Also it looks to me like you're conflating "certifying election results" with "appointing a slate of electors". Pennsylvania's state law says that the department of state certifies election results. I don't see anything unconstitutional about that. In Indiana the Secretary of State and the directors of the Indiana Election Division, certify election results. Hell in Ohio, the SoS certifies election results. And then notifies each elector appointed that they are to meet at the prescribed time and place, to discharge their duties as electors.

So yeah. The constitution should prevail and I don't see how it did not WRT certifying election results and appointing electors, in Pennsylvania or any other state.

 

[jamil]

BINGO…

Uh. I think you grabbed the wrong sheet.

 

[KG1]

Hmm. That statement highlighted in red doesn't say what you said it says.

The constitution says that the way electors are appointed is up to the state's legislature to decide. That's kind of what "such Manner as" means. Also it looks to me like you're conflating "certifying election results" with "appointing a slate of electors". Pennsylvania's state law says that the department of state certifies election results. I don't see anything unconstitutional about that. In Indiana the Secretary of State and the directors of the Indiana Election Division, certify election results. Hell in Ohio, the SoS certifies election results. And then notifies each elector appointed that they are to meet at the prescribed time and place, to discharge their duties as electors.

So yeah. The constitution should prevail and I don't see how it did not WRT certifying election results and appointing electors, in Pennsylvania or any other state.

That was the question which came to my mind. Who appointed the electors? Was it the SOS or the legislature? If the legislature did and the SOS only certified those electors, then I don't see what was unconstitutional about that.

Now it the SOS circumvented the legislature by both appointing AND certifying the electors then I would say that's a problem.

 

[jamil]

I don't believe the alternate slate in PA was chosen unambiguously by the legislature. but I thought the point in contention was whether Pence did or did not have the authority to reject the SoS certified slate. How it could be constitutionally legit was a hypothetical. You seem to be arguing Pence could not have rejected the proferred slate and others seem to be suggesting Trump thought Pence could 'install' him as president, which is bull****

I think Trump wanted to force the court's hand to take up the case by presenting them with a situation they could not ignore

If Pence has the authority to reject Pennsylvania's certification, based on the SoS, then he has the authority to reject Ohio's too. As it's certified by the SoS too.

Also, I don't think I can speculate what was going on in Trump's head. I think was just looking for an angle and hoping courts would agree. But that's speculation too.

 

[jamil]

That was the question which came to my mind. Who appointed the electors? Was it the SOS or the legislature? If the legislature did and the SOS only certified those electors, then I don't see what was unconstitutional about that.

Now it the SOS circumvented the legislature by both appointing AND certifying the electors then I would say that's a problem.

In Indiana I think the parties elect the electors, and then the SOS appoints the party's electors who won the vote? I think? Nevertheless, the process that Pennsylvania follows does not look a lot different from the process Indiana uses. But I admit I'm foggy on some of the legalese.

 

[KG1]

In Indiana I think the parties elect the electors, and then the SOS appoints the party's electors who won the vote? I think? Nevertheless, the process that Pennsylvania follows does not look a lot different from the process Indiana uses. But I admit I'm foggy on some of the legalese.

Well, I think a better description of what I meant was who elected those electors? Was it the SOS? or did he only certify the chosen electors? Was the legislature not involved in the process at any time? If not that would be a problem.

 

[KG1]

Another question that came to mind is did the legislature let it go down the way that it did? Would that not be considered to be a "manner of their choosing"?

 

[jamil]

Well, I think a better description of what I meant was who elected those electors? Was it the SOS? or did he only certify the chosen electors?

According to Pennsylvania sate law, each presidential candidate picks their own electors after their national convention. Those names are sent to the SoS. When you vote for a candidate, you're voting for that candidates electors. So after the election the SoS of PA will certify the election results, and the electors for the candidate who won will be appointed.

The state legislature could vote to say voters have failed to make a choice, which is a constitutional provision. And then the legislature can decide how the electors should be appointed.

And that's a pretty grey area. Did the state legislature have due cause to say the voters failed to make a choice? I think if they did, I guess it might go to the courts to decide that. Surely Democrats would challenge it.

But, did the PA legislature decide such?

I know in Indiana Braun was planning to vote to reject AZ and PA's results, as if a state could do that. But then after the riots in DC on 1/6, he thew in the towel on that. I don't think Todd Young ever planned to do it.

 

[jamil]

In PA, the SoS in accordance with state law, certified the election results with Biden as the winner. So then Biden's electors would be appointed, according to law.

 

[jamil]

Another question that came to mind is did the legislature let it go down the way that it did? Would that not be considered to be a "manner of their choosing"?

They do have the option of deciding the "voters failed to make a choice", in which case, they can appoint whichever electors they want. I've not googled that, but I'm sure such a move would have been infamous. And Trump would legally have won PA, at least until the courts decide that the PA legislature had no cause to claim they failed to make a choice.

 

[KG1]

According to Pennsylvania sate law, each presidential candidate picks their own electors after the national its convention. Those names are sent to the SoS. When you vote for a candidate, you're voting for that candidates electors. So after the election the SoS of PA will certify the election results, and the electors for the candidate who won will be appointed.

The state legislature could vote to say voters have failed to make a choice, which is a constitutional provision. And then the legislature can decide how the electors should be appointed.

And that's a pretty grey area. Did the state legislature have due cause to say the voters failed to make a choice? I think if they did, I guess it might go to the courts to decide that. Surely Democrats would challenge it.

But, did the PA legislature decide such?

I know in Indiana Braun was planning to vote to reject AZ and PA's results, as if a state could do that. But then after the riots in DC on 1/6, he thew in the towel on that. I don't think Todd Young ever planned to do it.

I guess the bottom line is did the SOS only certify the chosen electors that were presented to him or was he more involved in the process? I'm just trying to pose these questions to try and get a better understanding of what actually went down in PA.

 

[jamil]

I guess the bottom line is did the SOS only certify the chosen electors that were presented to him or was he more involved in the process? I'm just trying to pose these questions to try and get a better understanding of what actually went down in PA.

First, the PA SoS is a she. So obviously she did it right. Just ask her.

Regardless, I'm still puzzled by the language "certify the chosen electors". The election results are certified by the SoS by state law. I haven't seen such language in the statutes about certifying electors, per se. Which is why I thought Bug was conflating the two.

The way it's supposed to work, once she certifies the results, she notifies the appropriate electors that they were appointed, and she directs them to meet and do their thing pursuant to federal law.

Now. Did she actually follow that process? I don't know. But since she's a member of the party of groomers, presumably she would notify the groomer's slate of electors. And regardless, apparently whichever slate of electers it was, they voted for the groomer.

 

[KG1]

First, the PA SoS is a she. So obviously she did it right. Just ask her.

Regardless, I'm still puzzled by the language "certify the chosen electors". The election results are certified by the SoS by state law. I haven't seen such language in the statutes about certifying electors, per se. Which is why I thought Bug was conflating the two.

The way it's supposed to work, once she certifies the results, she notifies the appropriate electors that they were appointed, and she directs them to meet and do their thing pursuant to federal law.

Now. Did she actually follow that process? I don't know. But since she's a member of the party of groomers, presumably she would notify the groomer's slate of electors. And regardless, apparently whichever slate of electers it was, they voted for the groomer.

See that's how much I know about what went down in PA. I wasn't even aware the SOS was a she. That's why I'm asking questions to try and get a better understanding of what actually went down that made it unconstitutional.