Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ubiq, after having read the Lawfare article are you willing to concede that the Justice Department/Attorney General have the standing to declare an act (partially) unconstitutional and act accordingly by disregarding provisions they deemed contrary to the constitution? This type of action has occurred regularly with different presidential administrations over the last half century and longer. (Obviously not with the succession act in particular, as that act has never been used in history.)
jackk, you’re a day late and a dollar short. The Democrats already HAVE played this game with their abuse of the constitutional impeachment process for use as a political weapon and a farcial attempt to overturn the election they lost and the will of the voters.
Now the Democrats are reaping what they sowed with the Republicans utilizing constitutional and legal mechanisms available in kind.
ubiq, you obviously didn’t read the first citation I posted on the Lawfare site. That article, in fact, does say that the Justice Department/Attorney General can unilaterally declare the succession act partially unconstitutional and thereafter act accordingly by skipping the two members of Congress listed in that act, for the purposes of succession.
Folks, please read Loyola University Chicago Law Journal’s “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management” before even attempting to mindlessly respond with legally inaccurate claims.
Ms. Zola, Mr. Goldsmith is an expert on federal law (among other areas of law) at Harvard Law School. You’re clearly out of your element in unsuccessfully attempting to understand the subject matter. Perhaps you can have someone explain it to you.
Suddenly the Democrats are crying how “undemocratic” it is for Republicans to use a fully legal, constitutional, process when just mere months ago the Democrats used the constitutional impeachment process as an undemocratic political farce attempt to overturn the will of the voters and the election the Democrats lost.
Charlie: Impeaching Pompeo simply moves the Acting Presidency down the line to another Trump cabinet member.
The Justice Department can issue a legal opinion before January 20 that constitutionally the succession act must skip members of Congress. Then at noon on January 20 the AG swears into office as Acting President a member of Trump’s cabinet.
As I suggested, read “A Presidential Succession Nightmare”, written by a liberal Democrat legal scholar.
Once Pence is out of office, Republican Chuck Grassley becomes the presiding officer of the Joint Session of Congress in the absence of the joint session having yet declared a winner of the electoral college.
As links aren’t permitted, Google (without quotes): unconstitutional presidential succession act
Take your pick from any number of results, especially “A Presidential Succession Nightmare” on the Lawfare site or even the Wikipedia article.
The general legal consensus is that the weight of constitutional evidence is that the act is unconstitutional in placing any Congress members in the line of succession and, therefore, they could be skipped.
If the joint session that starts on January 6 doesn’t declare a winner by January 20, there will be only an Acting President, and no elected president, in office until the joint session declares a winner.
Hadorah: It is a legal fact that the President and AG have the legal right and ability to determine a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional and so declare and act accordingly by not enforcing the act they determine is unconstitutional. This is a routine point and fact that is regularly done by presidents and AGs. Often when signing a law the president will add a “signing statement” declaring a particular provision of the law unconstitutional. And thereafter disregard the provision declared unconstitutional.
CTL: You are merely repeating your factually false claims. You are absolutely wrong about this matter of constitutional law. You may practice state civil tort in court but your knowledge of federal constitutional law is demonstrably poor.
Yaakov: I addressed your point in my P.S. The AG can declare the Secretary of State next in line after the Vice President. That would make Mike Pompeo the Acting President at noon on January 20, *IF* the scenario I described transpires.
CTL: There’s an Acting Attorney General. He has the same power as a sitting AG in this case. Furthermore, you are incorrect. None of the members of the cabinet, including AG, Acting AG, Secretary of State, etc stop serving in their positions on January 20 at noon, until and unless the new President or Acting President fires any of the cabinet members. Unless and until such time the outgoing administration’s cabinet legally continues to serve in their position.
Reb Eliezer, are you trying to hint that we’re doing nittel on January 6 due to the churban we’re expecting that day in Congress??
Navarro is correct. If the January 6 joint session of Congress lasts past January 20, then the inauguration is delayed until the joint joint session is complete and determines a winner of the electoral college. The joint session is likely to be delayed past January 6 due to multiple objections. Each objection requires two hours of floor debate. Plus there’s additional administrative time until the two houses convene for each two hour debate plus reconvene for the joint session after each two hour debate. That’s usually four hours from the time of the objection until the count continues after the debate.
There are fifty one slates of electors. There are five hundred and thirty eight electors. One Senator plus one Congressman can object to each of the fifty one slates. Or if they want to delay it even more they can individually object to each of the 538 electors. Requiring 2 hours of debate (about four hours of interruption) each time.
Congress also needs to sleep at night. It can easily go past January 20. And Michael Pence is the presiding officer of Congress who rules on how to handle each objection.
Freilichen Purim!
P.S. There’s a legitimate constitutional debate as to whether the Succession Act is constitutional in placing non-members of the Executive Branch (the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate) in the line. The Attorney General has the authority to determine its constitutionality and how to carry out the law. If it seems likely they’ll be no declared winner from the joint session of Congress before January 6, the AG potentially could rule that the Speaker and Pro Temp are skipped and therefore Secretary of State Mike Pompeo becomes Acting President on January 20, until the joint session declares a winner.
Freilichen Shushan Purim!
Saudi Arabia has been working with Israel secretly over the last few years to counter Iran. A Saudi-Israel treaty is pretty close to being signed within the next year or so. Israel has not opposed the Saudi arms sale by the US. In fact, Israel has asked Biden to maintain US support for Saudi Arabia:
Coffee Addict: Igros Moshe YD 3:91
The scholarly law review I cited, at the above-mentioned page, states that the VP’s decision to not present a submitted electoral vote would stand unless a majority of both houses of Congress voted to overrule the VP’s decision.
U.S. Const. amdt. XII —
The Senate president is required by the Constitution to “open all the certificates”.3 U.S.C. § 15 —
The Act further describes as “all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates”.Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541. —
Regarding whether the Senate president can be required to present or not present any particular paper submitted as a states electoral college vote, concurrent action by both houses would settle the matter while disagreement between the houses would see the Senate president’s decision upheld.(The Senate president is the Vice President of the United States.)
Regarding my earlier reference to the joke, I got the year wrong. In one case from 1889, papers sent as a “practical joke” have been presented to the joint session. (Siegel, Stephen A. (2004). “The Conscientious Congressman’s Guide to the Electoral Count Act of 1887”. Florida Law Review. Vol. 56. p. 541.)
To huju: You’re welcome. It is the complete answer.
“No state submitted opposing sets of electors this year either. Sure a few nut jobs may have appointed themselves.”
Five states this year have multiple competing slates of electors. The Electoral Count Act clearly states that the Vice President shall open all *purported* slates of electors submitted to Congress. Even if it seems to be a complete farce. In fact, in either 2008 or 2012 (I forget which year it was) some comedian submitted an official looking purported slate of electors for a state as a joke and, in accordance with the act, Congress opened and acknowledged it.
“if aAl gore decided “forget electors im just gonna declare myself president” in that case the court COULD intervene. Correct?”
No. The court could not intervene. If the court was asked to intervene the court would declare the issue a political question for Congress to fix and something the courts are unqualified to address.
Congress could override the presiding officer (i.e. the Vice President) *if* a majority of both houses of Congress voted to override the action of the Vice President. In the absence of a majority of both houses voting to override him, the ruling of the Vice President would stand.
ubiq — The Electoral Count Act specifically addresses the problem of their being multiple sets of electors submitted to Congress coming from the same state. Because that act was passed by Congress in response to that exact problem having occurred just a few years before the act became law.
ENS: You left your thinking cap far away. No part of my discussion was anything other than January 6 — which has NOT been litigated altogether.
You forgot that we are in golus.
Once you remember that your entire premise falls apart.
“In 2000 Al gore (then vice President) could have just chosen himself as President?”
If Florida had submitted two opposing set of electors in 2000 (they didn’t) and Gore only recognized the Democrat slate submitted (and ignored the Republican slate), members of both houses of Congress could then either accept or reject that (Democrat) slate (by each house voting separately.) If both houses didn’t agree to reject it, Gore technically could have counted Florida for himself, giving himself a majority of the Electoral College and thereby the presidency.
To huju: The Ribono Shel Olam rewards me for expressing his H Hakoras Hatov on His children’s behalf.
A Shliach Hashem.
“If congress made an internal policy that no Jews can sit in congress, you can bet the court can stop them.”
You’re absolutely incorrect. As egregious as such a policy would be, ONLY Congress could change that. No court.
“80% of the bucherim will go to work in something other then chinuch or klay kodesh”
What’s wrong with that??
No court can tell Congress how to handle its internal policies, regulations and/or legislative rulings. Passing laws is a different thing that involves multiple branches of government.
To huju: The only payment I accept is from the Ribono Shel Plan for following His command to express Hakaros Hatov to the friends of Klal Yisroel.
The greatest President since Lincoln.
ubiq: A FUNDAMENTAL principle of American constitutional law is that the three branches of the government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial are each COEQUAL to each other. It is an undisputed and basic principle of constitutional law that no court can order Congress to act in any way.
The Vice President of the United States is constitutionally the presiding officer of the United States Senate and of the Joint Session of Congress that is constitutionally tasked with making the final count and determination of the winner of the Electoral College.
As presiding officer, Vice President Michael Pence’s rulings in the Joint Session are final and unappealable.
All of this is basic constitutional law.
It isn’t true. Sincere Bnei Torah working bochorim are looked up to and sought after.
ENS: Your reading comprehension needs a lot of improvement. I did NOT say Biden will be removed/convicted after being impeached. In fact, I clearly said he would not be.
Orech: Democrats have adamantly opposed any form of voter ID requirements EVERY time its every come up.
Pence might just declare Trump the winner when he constitutionally presides over the Joint Session on January 6. His ruling is that final ruling and cannot constitutionally be judicially reviewed.
Orech: Why aren’t the Democrats opposed to ID to buy alcohol, enter a government building, obtain welfare money or get on a flight for “distinct populations”?
By all means add state-issued student IDs to the accepted list. And make them easily obtainable when requiring them to cast a ballot.
But the Democrats are ADAMANTLY opposed to ANY mandate of requiring ID before voting. Because requiring it would hamper their ability to cheat.
Meno, *if* the person is in a higher risk category (but not on the government’s prioritized access list) AND the difference in time between getting it by waiting versus getting it now has an appreciable risk of death or severe injury.
President Trump’s use of pardons and commutations on behalf of numerous Orthodox Jews, whereas previous presidents have refused to, is another manifestation of The Donald’s ahavas Yisroel.
ubiq: After the midterms when Biden is impeached he will not be removed.