Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

I'm trying to find out too.

Bug said the SoS certified the electors, and then said the constitution said only the state legislatures can do that. So I set about trying to find out for myself. Constitution does not say that. So that's one thing.

So the next thing would be, did PA follow state law. It looks to me like they did. But I'm not seeing anything about legislatures certifying electors. Just that the SoS certifies the election results and then notifies the appropriate electors. Maybe that's the elector certification? But at any rate I did not see in the PA state law where legislators become involved in certifying electors. Their involvement would be at such time that they determine that "the voters failed to choose."

I'm reading an article now about the PA legislature declining to declare that "the voters failed to choose". I put that in quotes because that's a constitutional stipulation. Anyway, I'm not seeing anything constitutionally untoward about the certification process.

I do think that Trump may have a legitimate complaint about the election boards changing the rules counter to election laws WRT extending the deadlines. I don't think they have the authority to do that.

 

[DragonGunner]

Who does the repenting?

If those who are called by my name…Isaiah chapter 1. God lays blame to His people. It’s a good chapter for todays America as well. The righteous city full of judgment has become corrupt. The leaders take bribes, the churches are a mess……

 

[Ingomike]

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.

SoS have no constitutional authority at all…

 

[KG1]

SoS have no constitutional authority at all…

So does that mean an SoS has no authority to certify an election at all? Maybe you can help clarify the other question jamil and myself were trying to determine. What exactly went down in the Pa. elector process that was unconstitutional? Serious question.

 

[Ingomike]

So does that mean an SoS has no authority to certify an election at all? Maybe you can help clarify the other question jamil and myself were trying to determine. What exactly went down in the Pa. elector process that was unconstitutional? Serious question.

That you don’t know that the “manner” of electing electors was changed by entities other than the legislatures is troubling. Though not as troubling as the legislatures failing to zealously protect their constitutional authority.

 

[BugI02]

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,

Based on that paragraph, one might conclude you do not believe that the 1/6 crowd was full of FBI etc operatives who were tasked with causing some kind of incident. Is this one of those 'no proof so it didn't happen' situations? No proof as in the FBI refuses to answer whether it had any operatives in the crowd or how many if it did?

It never ceases to amaze me how so many credit Trump with being all powerful by trying to affix blame to him as if with a word he could have changed the outcome. Not sure how you can stave off his winning the primary if he is so all powerful

Not sure if you remember he offered Bowser 20000 national guard troops almost a week before the planned protest (which she refused, purportedly because the Dems 'didn't like the optics') so it isn't like there's any proof he wanted any such thing to happen

Of course, lack of proof can still be taken as evidence as long as it points in the desired direction

Hail Hydra! DeSantis will save us

 

[KG1]

That you don’t know that the “manner” of electing electors was changed by entities other than the legislatures is troubling. Though not as troubling as the legislatures failing to zealously protect their constitutional authority.

Thanks for clearing that up for me mike. I was asking a question in good faith in what specifically went down in Pa and as usual you can't help yourself but to respond with your usual condescension. It doesn't surprise me though.

I know now not to ask you any more questions in good faith with the expectation of receiving a good faith answer in return.

 

[BugI02]

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.

In PA, each party selects its own slate of electors and submits them to the governor. The slate submitted by the party judged to have won the state election is certified by the governor - not sure how the Secretary of State gets in there. PA does not require electors to vote for any particular candidate, though

I don't know, and lack enough interest to search for, whether there is existing law to delegate that constitutional authority clearly to the governor/Secretary of State. It would be interesting to know but a ***** to actually find

I assume you would agree that the constitutional language would allow the legislature to assert the authority to either change the procedure if it is statutory or to reclaim the authority if it has been usurped

Again, the point of contention is supposed to be whether Pence actually had the authority to reject any states slate of electors, not the specifics of that particular case - and it is my contention that that was indeed within Pence's purview as VP

Had he done so, given that both senators and representatives were planning to also object, I believe the house and senate would have met (separately) to debate the issue as also stipulated in the constitution. While it may well have been moot, since both the house and senate would have to agree to reject a slate of electors for it to be so rejected, there may have been some other legal angle that the Trump camp felt would be enabled by such an event

Unlike so many of my esteemed colleagues, I don't pretend to know what Trump may have had in mind

 

[KG1]

Based on that paragraph, one might conclude you do not believe that the 1/6 crowd was full of FBI etc operatives who were tasked with causing some kind of incident. Is this one of those 'no proof so it didn't happen' situations? No proof as in the FBI refuses to answer whether it had any operatives in the crowd or how many if it did?

It never ceases to amaze me how so many credit Trump with being all powerful by trying to affix blame to him as if with a word he could have changed the outcome. Not sure how you can stave off his winning the primary if he is so all powerful

Not sure if you remember he offered Bowser 20000 national guard troops almost a week before the planned protest (which she refused, purportedly because the Dems 'didn't like the optics') so it isn't like there's any proof he wanted any such thing to happen

Of course, lack of proof can still be taken as evidence as long as it points in the desired direction

Hail Hydra! DeSantis will save us

You would be wrong in your conclusions Bug. Did you not see the part where I said that I don't believe Trump's intentions were for the Capitol to be breached by force in order to interrupt the proceedings?

You would also be wrong in concluding that I don't believe there were any operatives in the crowd of protestors to encourage those who rioted to take action. (Hello Ray Epps for example) and I firmly believe there were many others.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer that I DO NOT believe Trump played any part in what happened at the Capitol on 1/6 other than to rally protestors who gathered to march to the Capitol to protest peacefully and patriotically. You were way off the mark on this one Bug

Once again in typical Bug and IM fashion you can't help but respond to a post without the usual condescension

In closing I challenge you to find any post that I have made which remotely suggests that I have "Hailed DeSantis" as the one to save us all.

 

[Ingomike]

Thanks for clearing that up for me mike. I was asking a question in good faith in what specifically went down in Pa and as usual you can't help yourself but to respond with your usual condescension. It doesn't surprise me though.

I know now not to ask you any more questions in good faith with the expectation of receiving a good faith answer in return.

It truly is sad to me that on such a big deal, the 2020 election, so many, do not know much about what happened. I picture the INGO political participants as being more knowledgeable than the average person. Was not trying to offend you, just an expression of incredulity I should not have said.

 

[BugI02]

I'm trying to find out too.

Bug said the SoS certified the electors, and then said the constitution said only the state legislatures can do that. So I set about trying to find out for myself. Constitution does not say that. So that's one thing.
[You are being a bit pedantic.Do you agree the constitution gives each states legislature the authority to set the manner of choosing electors? If there is no delegation of authority by the legislature either to the parties to select their electors or to the SoS to certify the results of the election, would that SoS indicated slate of electors have been chosen constitutionally? If it was simply traditional to allow the parties to select their electors without any formal empowerment, could that not be challenged. I also wonder about the delegation to the SoS, who is an elected, and thus presumably partisan official - has that authority been formally delegated. I can see how the issue might not come up unless and until there was a close and contentious election]
So the next thing would be, did PA follow state law. It looks to me like they did. But I'm not seeing anything about legislatures certifying electors. Just that the SoS certifies the election results and then notifies the appropriate electors. Maybe that's the elector certification? But at any rate I did not see in the PA state law where legislators become involved in certifying electors. Their involvement would be at such time that they determine that "the voters failed to choose.
I'm reading an article now about the PA legislature declining to declare that "the voters failed to choose". I put that in quotes because that's a constitutional stipulation. Anyway, I'm not seeing anything constitutionally untoward about the certification process. ["Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" I don't think that language is unclear. If the legislature at some point enacted a law delegating the authority to certify the election results to the SoS then that would be 'in the manner of the legislature's choosing' and legally legit, then the SoS appoints/certifies/whatever the electors of the party whose election win was certified. Although I may have used the terms interchangeably, no electors seem to be 'appointed' unless they are on the list submitted by the party 'certified' as winning the states election. It certainly seems to me the legislature could reclaim the authority to appoint electors, if it indeed has been formally delegated, if they wish]

in the manner of the legislature's choosing

I do think that Trump may have a legitimate complaint about the election boards changing the rules counter to election laws WRT extending the deadlines. I don't think they have the authority to do that. [The problem being 8 Nov to 6 Jan is not enough time to legally dispute anything or present evidence, as well as most courts would be extremely reluctant to interfere in the transfer of powe without compelling evidence. Catch 22]

 

[jamil]

That you don’t know that the “manner” of electing electors was changed by entities other than the legislatures is troubling. Though not as troubling as the legislatures failing to zealously protect their constitutional authority.

I read the state law. It specifies that the SOS certifies the election results. That law was created BY THE LEGISLATURE!

In Indiana, the SoS certifies our results, but along with some board of elections. I don’t remember the title.

 

[KG1]

I challenge you to find any post that I have made which remotely suggests that I have "Hailed DeSantis" as the one to save us all.

Still waiting Bug......

 

[jamil]

C'mon man. The forum has features for quoting and commenting that make it much easier to reply to. You're taking the fun out of it and making this a choir to reply.

You are being a bit pedantic.Do you agree the constitution gives each states legislature the authority to set the manner of choosing electors? If there is no delegation of authority by the legislature either to the parties to select their electors or to the SoS to certify the results of the election, would that SoS indicated slate of electors have been chosen constitutionally? If it was simply traditional to allow the parties to select their electors without any formal empowerment, could that not be challenged. I also wonder about the delegation to the SoS, who is an elected, and thus presumably partisan official - has that authority been formally delegated. I can see how the issue might not come up unless and until there was a close and contentious election.

Pedantic? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The legislature has the authority to say who certifies the election. The PA state law says it's the SoS. I don't know what the **** else you want. Yes. The legislature could change the law if they so voted. And there is the other mechanism I mentioned, if they feel that the will of the people wasn't met, they can vote to claim the constitutional authority to say the voters failed to choose. And then they can pick whichever electors they want.

We'll run through this again. The parties, specifically the presidential candidate for each party chooses the electors they want, pursuant to the constitutional requirements for an elector. In PA, per state law, duly enacted by the state legislature, the SoS certifies the election results. So then the slate of electors chosen by the candidate certified to win, casts their ballots for POTUS/VPOTUS per constitutional requirements. Then they send those off to DC for the president of the senate, in this case it was Mike Pence, for him to certify.

Now. If you think that process wasn't followed per state law, knock yourself out. YOU dig that evidence up and present it. But from what I see, state law was followed at least in the manner of how election results are certified, and which electors get to cast their ballots, and then go to the VEEP to certify.

 

[jamil]

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" I don't think that language is unclear. If the legislature at some point enacted a law delegating the authority to certify the election results to the SoS then that would be 'in the manner of the legislature's choosing' and legally legit, then the SoS appoints/certifies/whatever the electors of the party whose election win was certified. Although I may have used the terms interchangeably, no electors seem to be 'appointed' unless they are on the list submitted by the party 'certified' as winning the states election. It certainly seems to me the legislature could reclaim the authority to appoint electors, if it indeed has been formally delegated, if they wish

No. It can't be more clear. Clearly, the legislature passed a bill, signed into law by the governor, empowering the SoS to certify election results. The appointing of electors is done by the candidates. Each has their own slate of electors.

When voters vote, they're not voting for the POTUS/VPOTUS. They're voting for which slate of electors get to vote for POTUS/VPOTUS. So when the SoS certifies the election results, she's setting the slate of electors that gets to vote. In PA, it's also her duty to notify the members of the slate that the winner chose, that they should meet at the prescribed place, at the prescribed time, and execute their duties as electors.

The legislature could indeed reclaim the authority to do the certification, and such. Did they? Please report back once you've determined that.

 

[jamil]

SoS have no constitutional authority at all…

The state legislature has constitutional authority. They delegated it to the SoS by a duly passed act, signed by the governor. If you think something untoward happened in the manner that the election was certified, I invite you to present your evidence. So did the legislature pull the rug under SoS Lucy's feet as she certified the results?

 

[KG1]

It truly is sad to me that on such a big deal, the 2020 election, so many, do not know much about what happened. I picture the INGO political participants as being more knowledgeable than the average person. Was not trying to offend you, just an expression of incredulity I should not have said.

Pardon me IM. I'm just another average low info voter that doesn't give a crap who doesn't meet your expectations.

 

[jamil]

So does that mean an SoS has no authority to certify an election at all? Maybe you can help clarify the other question jamil and myself were trying to determine. What exactly went down in the Pa. elector process that was unconstitutional? Serious question.

Nothing as far as I can tell. The state law delegates the SoS the authority to certify, which she did, in favor of Joe Biden, who won the majority of votes in PA. She notified Biden's slate of electors, directing them to the prescribed time and place to carry out their duties. Those ballots were sent to DC for the VPOTUS to certify.

I have not found anything that says the Legislature exercised its constitutional authority to claim the voters did not make a choice, in which case they could seat Trump's slate of electors if they wanted to.

I have not found anything that says the Legislature exercised its authority to change the manner in which votes are certified or lectors are chosen. I did, however find an article that stated, that the Republican majority said they would follow the state law, meaning that they weren't going to fight it.

Now if someone better at google than I am can find something to the contrary, please post it. But if not, maybe y'all might want to STFU about claiming PA did something unconstitutional WRT electors.

There still is the issue with state election boards changing the rules around election deadlines which only the legislature has the authority to do, unless there's some kind of emergency authorization. Which, for an election, I'd be surprised if there were. So I think that's a legitimate claim, but nothing will come of it because the PA SC ruled that it's fine.

 

[jamil]

That you don’t know that the “manner” of electing electors was changed by entities other than the legislatures is troubling. Though not as troubling as the legislatures failing to zealously protect their constitutional authority.

Can you post something from someone that doesn't use the term "Kraken" to describe their unnamed sources for information? I mean someone credible. Go on. Tell us what happened. Tell us who changed the manner of electing electors from what the PA state legislature had passed and the governor signed into law.

 

[KG1]

Nothing as far as I can tell. The state law delegates the SoS the authority to certify, which she did, in favor of Joe Biden, who won the majority of votes in PA. She notified Biden's slate of electors, directing them to the prescribed time and place to carry out their duties. Those ballots were sent to DC for the VPOTUS to certify.

I have not found anything that says the Legislature exercised its constitutional authority to claim the voters did not make a choice, in which case they could seat Trump's slate of electors if they wanted to.

I have not found anything that says the Legislature exercised its authority to change the manner in which votes are certified or lectors are chosen. I did, however find an article that stated, that the Republican majority said they would follow the state law, meaning that they weren't going to fight it.

Now if someone better at google than I am can find something to the contrary, please post it. But if not, maybe y'all might want to STFU about claiming PA did something unconstitutional WRT electors.

There still is the issue with state election boards changing the rules around election deadlines which only the legislature has the authority to do, unless there's some kind of emergency authorization. Which, for an election, I'd be surprised if there were. So I think that's a legitimate claim, but nothing will come of it because the PA SC ruled that it's fine.

Not sure but I think IM is saying that the SOS unconstitutionally changed the "manor" of how the electors are elected thereby usurping the legislatures constitutional authority without their approval.

My point that I was trying to ascertain was to gather some more information on what exactly she did to change that?