DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
That is a concern. The law is wishy-washy. It was intended to limit Congress so that they could guarantee States that Congress would not reject their electoral votes as long as the State complied with certain laws.
The law says "no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected"
It is only if the votes do not meet that criteria that Congress could decide to reject the votes. But who decides whether those legal requirements were met? Presumably Congress makes that decision. So Congress deicides whether it is going to accept the limitations it has placed on itself or not.
The Constitution creates and grants authority to the House and Senate. It does not create or grant any authority to any type of joint session, even though it says the votes must be counted in front of both houses.
The Supreme Court does not interfere with the proceedings of the House or Senate because they each have their own jurisdiction. But because this is unusual and because is written in statute, the Supreme Court may have authority to determine that the legal requirements were met and therefore the House and Senate had no authority under law to reject the votes. But who decides whether or not the Supreme Court has such authority?
So the end result is a constitutional crises if Congress would dare to actually try to outright steal an election. That, of course, likely leads to the collapse of the Union and civil war.
