Trumps Immunity.

What do you mean?

 

Trump literally argued that the VP does have that power and pressured him to exercise it. But I'm glad we finally agree that Trump is a fascist ******** who tried to illegally steal the election.

 

I mean Trump has done more to try to UNDO elections having consequences since any politician in US history.

 

And the Democrats changed the law and the VP no longer has any authority in that regard. Remember?

 

The VP never had that power. Ever. Please try reading the Constitution and the ECA. You won't.

 

It is really still very much in the air until the courts distinguish the difference between official and personal acts.
Is a a re election rally on the mall an official act?
Is setting up separate electors an official act?
Is keeping secret classified documents after one leaves office an official act?
Are actions concerning his private property an official act.
I feel the Court walked a tightrope here to avoid making a definitive decision and have muddied the water.
I predict there will be many more cases needed to clarify what this means.

 

OK.....and what would be the net result? The USSC would quickly determine that such an action is unconstitutional and we would be back at square one. Presidents can assert lots of constitutional determinations and it is the job of the USSC to create a check on the executive branch and determine whether their action is Constitutional.

The left acts as if a President were to do so, that all of a sudden our government collapses. It is a nonsensical viewpoint. The Consitution does not cease to exist because a President takes any particular action. Presidents are routinely shot down by the USSC, such as with Bidens first student loan forgiveness. This is not a big deal. All of this pearl clutching is as misplaced as it gets.

 

All he did was challenge the results. That's been done hundreds of times in our history, maybe even thousands.

 

And the USSC could also rule that, since the deadline had passed for counting the EC votes, that it goes to House vote instead. Which was part of the goal. This is a big deal to anyone who actually gives two shits about democratic elections. Which, of course, Trump supporters do not.

 

No. He didn't just do that. His scheme was one that has never been tried before. You don't even know what it was he was trying. I could educate you, if you like.

 

Then why change a law that never needed changing in the first place.... it had been on the book untouched for 135 years...

 

Yes it had been tried before.... by Democrats...

 

Because no one acted so dumb that they couldn't read it for 135 years. Then someone pretended he was too stupid to read it. So they restated what the law already said . . . to help out corrupt morons like Trump to learn to read. You would know this if you had read the Constitution and the ECA. You clearly haven't read either.

 

No. It hasn't. I've debunked this dozens of times. Please actually read the Eastman memo. Dems never tried anything like that. Neither have Republicans before Trump.

 

If a Presidential act is constitutional it will be upheld by the USSC. If it goes against the Constitution, it will immediately be stopped in its tracks.

Nothing has changed in this regard. Literally nothing. If you honestly believe all of this wacko leftist hand wringing you are little more than a useful dupe. I feel bad for you folks that are so easily fooled. The notion that a President can just declare themself a Monarch and then nothing can be done is just silly. If this notion was not so persistent amongst the left I would assume that you are joking, but I realize that you are not. That is sad.

If Biden were to attempt such an action I would find it humorous. It would most certainly NOT be a reason for panic. My reaction would not be all that different than when Hillary was talking about freeing up the electors to vote their conscience. It was a meaningless gesture. Enough with the whole sky is falling routine. It is nonsensical.

 

I'm sorry you find the Constitution nonsensical. I rather like it.

 

They aren't crimes, so it's irrelevant.

 

Because the Democrats knew that a VP did have the authority to challenge the electoral votes.

 

The Constitution is not nonsensical. What is nonsensical is your apparent belief that the Constitution is impotent, and that a President can do anything they want and render it meaningless.

You do not have a rational basis for this belief. Your people are lying to you.

 

There have been alternate electors before. That wasn't something new.

 

Then why did Congress change the law?

 

Try reading my previous post. If the VP violates the Constitution, even if the SC rules that was a naughty thing to do, it could still mean that the vote no longer selects the president.

 

Asked and answered. Please explain why you didn't know, before today, what the Constitution and the ECA have to say about the VP's role in the election? This perplexes me.

 

These were very different. And you don't even know what "alternate electors" are. No. This was entirely new. Which is why you can't think of a single example in US history. And, no, faithless electors are not the same thing. And, no, 1960 Hawaii didn't involve fake electors like this. And these were fake electors, not "alternate" ones. NO ONE has ever tried what Trump was pressuring Pence to do. I encourage more homework on this subject. You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

 

Well, it is a violation of law under the Presidential records act and under Title 18 USC when one is a private citizen. So, yes, 18 USC 793(e) is a crime, and even recently a Navy sailor was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to 18 years in prison for the same type of crime Trump is accused of doing as a private citizen.