Yes, it did.
Trump claims the state legislators can overturn the popular votes of their state, despite no legal or constitutional veracity to this claim…today’s right wing says “meh…he’s just pursuing every Avenue”.
Trump claims VP Pence, by virtue of his envelope opening power in the Constitution, has the power to overturn the electoral vote of any state he wishes…such an “originalism interpretation of the plain text” right there…today’s right wing says “meh…we should explore this”.
Trump via his surrogates claim one state has the power to determine how other states run their elections despite no mandate in the Constitution for such a power…today’s right wing says “meh…what happens in Pennsylvania affects Texas…we HAVE to let this claim stand”.
Rita Hart kicks off a process that was mandated in the US Constitution AS WRITTEN…not even an amendment, but an actual original part of the Constitution.
Today’s right wing says “THE LIBS ARE TRYING TO OVERTHROW OUR REPUBLIC BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS! THE HORROR!”
Forgive me if some people’s claims to be guardians of the original Constitution and our original Republic ring a little hollow right now.
can you show me in the constitution the ability to to “provisionally” swear in an election winner?
No…it didn’t.
And here we go again.
To quote Captain America…”I can do this all day”.
Yes it did.
I showed you where the House has the power, in the Constitution, to judge the elections of its own members, and the means to do that is the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969.
Politically it may be a bad move for the Dems.
Constitutionally, they absolutely have the power to do this.
Nope…all day.
She was sworn in.
Okay you’ve already said that.
Doesn’t matter house rules on the notice of contest.
Allan
That’s NOT what I’m asking. When she was sworn in – they judged that she won the election. I’m asking to show me in the constitution where she can be sworn in provisionally.
Please and thank you.
Exactly, where were they in 1996 when bob dornan ® contested election results.
It’s the losers right to contest the election results.
She’s gonna lose but she has the perfect right to contest.
It’s written in the law.
Allan
House makes up it’s own rules.
It’s in the constitution.
Allan
Uuuuh no.
Once she was sworn in to her term. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 kicks in for removal.
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
The only consntitutional way to remove a house member once sworn in and taking office (still looking for the provisional swearing in and taking office in the constitution) – they may be only removed by 2/3rds vote of the house.
Now again . . . PLEASE for the love of god show me a provisional swearing in and taking a seat in the constitution.
Once sworn in, and taking the seat – The constitution gives ONE way for removal. That being 289 house members voting for removal. At that point a new election needs to be held.
Article 1 section 5
It’s clear as day.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide
Allan
And it is also clear that once being sworn in (I don’t see provisional anyplace in that) . . . the only way for removal is by 3/4 vote of the entire house. Thereby creating a vacancy and the state shall call for a new election.
You can’t pick n choose. There is a FULL proceedure. They judged her acceptable when they swore her in. If she is removed, it’s by a 3/4 vote and a vacancy exists and a new election shall be called by the state. The opponant can not be sworn in.
1 Like
Untrue hart has filed a notice of contest, contesting the election and as the constitution clearly states. House will rule of the election.
Allan
She where is says judge the elections in 1, 5
Allan
When she was sworn in, it kicks in the rest of the constitution.
2/3 vote for removal . . . . leaving a vacancy that shall be filled by new election.
Their rules can not over ride the constitution
sorry
House shall judge the elections.
The election is in question and house shall rule.
Allan
The house rules on elections of its members.
Allan
