The Angry Violent Left

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/31/hawley-senate-republicans-453204
 

“I strongly believe there should be a full-fledged congressional investigation and also a slate of election integrity legislation,” Hawley added. “I intend to object during the certification process on January 6 in order to force these issues to the fore, and to point out the unprecedented failure of states like Pennsylvania to follow their own election laws and the unprecedented efforts of Big Tech corporations to interfere with the election.”
 

 

I understand elections are localized and how they work.  My question was, is objecting to the certification unconstitutional?  He lays out his reasons why here.  
 

Again, I feel I have to say this on every post but I don’t agree that this is the place to air his issues.  He should do it during regular order.  But is it unconstitutional to do so?  

Is there a method or mechanism in the Constitution for Congress to overturn electoral votes after they have been cast by the states and a majority determined?

[Moiraine]

Stupid arguments against any and all protests is something that can make it easy for a tyrant to take over. All the person has to do is not be violent for as long as possible. People should protest against people who are trying to tear down our democratic institutions. And, if what Hawley is doing actually worked, it's far far worse than pounding on his door and threatening violence. If that's even what they did.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Is there a method or mechanism in the Constitution for Congress to overturn electoral vote after they have been cast by the states and a majority determined?

Yes. If there's a written objection signed by at least one member of each chamber, then the House and Senate stop counting and separately deliberate the objection. If majorities in the Senate and House agree, the electoral votes can be rejected. If enough are rejected, then a different outcome is possible.

 

At the end of the day Congress counts the electoral votes and decides the President. There would be political costs to pay for any and all acts, but it's possible Congress can do something different than the electoral votes. However, it's extremely difficult to get majorities in both chambers to overturn the EC results.

[ZRod]

13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Yes. If there's a written objection signed by at least one member of each chamber, then the House and Senate stop counting and separately deliberate the objection. If majorities in the Senate and House agree, the electoral votes can be rejected. If enough are rejected, then a different outcome is possible.

 

At the end of the day Congress counts the electoral votes and decides the President. There would be political costs to pay for any and all acts, but it's possible Congress can do something different than the electoral votes. However, it's extremely difficult to get majorities in both chambers to overturn the EC results.

Those are procedural rules passed by Congress and not amendments to the Consititution. I'd argue that there is no constitutional way to object or reject state's certified votes from electors. Congress's job is only to count the votes, and only to determine the president when a majority isn't reached from those votes.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Those are procedural rules passed by Congress and not amendments to the Consititution. I'd argue that there is no constitutional way to object or reject state's certified votes from electors. Congress's job is only to count the votes, and only to determine the president when a majority isn't reached from those votes.

Congress can object to any vote for any reason. 3 USC Section 15: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

 

This video has a detailed account of how the process works:

 

[Archy1221]

55 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

The media has always done its job and continues to do it's job.  You act like an a$$, you get called out.

So Romney and McCain acted likes a$$’s and deserved the horrid media treatment during their presidential runs compared to what their opponent got?  

[knapplc]

Remember when Josh Hawley got so upset that some people held a candlelight vigil outside his house and put a copy of the Constitution on his door?

 

Boy, he sure showed them today.

 

 

[alexhortdog95]

I am DEAD,

 

 

[Archy1221]

Media narrative about previous violent protests. 

[Born N Bled Red]

@Archy1221

I take an attack on our nation and government more seriously than people protesting in the streets. We as a nation are less safe now than we were before this happened yesterday. We don't know who was in that building, what information was accessed or stolen off congressional desks and computers. I love America, and our Democracy. The violence, loss of life, and destruction of property this summer was terrible. It didn't threaten our nation, our duly elected leaders or the United States Constitution. As a true patriot, and proud American, I can't be silent when this country I love is under attack.

 

While again, the violence this summer was wrong and terrible, American businesses have insurance to protect against loss of property and the federal government has provided aid that while couldn't possibly replace what some individuals lost completely has certainly helped. Yesterday's attacks threated the constitution of the United States of America directly. If that is destroyed, if our democracy is ruined, there is no coming back. Our standing as a beacon of light to the oppressed people of the world would be gone, and the sacrifices made by every American that lived, fought, and died defending our constitution from the Revolutionary War through the armed conflicts going on today would have been made in vain. 243 years ago, the founding fathers laid out a government that has been the envy of the free world ever since. That is what was attacked yesterday. 

 

The equivalency you keep presenting is false. If you can't see that you're blind.

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Yesterday's attacks threated the constitution of the United States of America directly.

While I agree with much of what you said, and I have already stated my opinion on what I thought about yesterday’s events, do you really think a bunch of unarmed rioters were actually going to overthrow our government, destroy the constitution and implement a new government? 
 

Our system of government has survived a struggling beginning, a civil war, 2 world wars.  It has gotten though this terrible period just fine too.  The system works
 

I’m not blind by the way.  I actually have 20/20 best corrected vision. 

[Born N Bled Red]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

While I agree with much of what you said, and I have already stated my opinion on what I thought about yesterday’s events, do you really think a bunch of unarmed rioters were actually going to overthrow our government, destroy the constitution and implement a new government? 
 

Our system of government has survived a struggling beginning, a civil war, 2 world wars.  It has gotten though this terrible period just fine too.  The system works
 

I’m not blind by the way.  I actually have 20/20 best corrected vision. 

Man, and here I thought we were making so much progress today...

 

Minimizing a coordinated attack on our democratic process, system of government, and the nation that so many generations have sacrificed to protect is pretty unbelievable 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Man, and here I thought we were making so much progress today...

 

Minimizing a coordinated attack on our democratic process, system of government, and the nation that so many generations have sacrificed to protect is pretty unbelievable 

Especially when it’s promoted by the president himself.  

[BigRedBuster]

Wrong thread.  

[RedDenver]