Trump's Coup d'état.

[acbytesla]

Yeah, but where does Ru fit into all this?

.

 

[acbytesla]

They don't really have to have a legitimate reason to object. Members of Congress are not allowed to make statements during the joint session. Any objections must be submitted in writing without argument. That means that they can't submitted a 500 page objection. The objection would just be that the votes were not regularly made.

Once they split into the House and Senate, then they can make their arguments and submit whatever documents they want into the record.

Actually, they do. You're right about the rules of the joint session though. What legitimate means though I do not know.

 

[gnome]

Unless there is some body empowered to intervene if a less than legitimate reason is offered, it's more of a guideline really...

 

[acbytesla]

Probably not. Congress does not get individual votes from each elector. They get a certificate singed by the electors that says what their total votes are. It does not list how each elector voted.

But there have been objections to a single vote in the case of a faithless elector. It is theoretically possible that one pair of Representative and Senator object to only one elector while another pair object only to a different elector. It is not clear whether they have 2 hours to vote on all objections or if they take them one at a time with 2 hours for each. There might be some rules of Congress that dictate that, but I'm not sure. It would probably be up to Pence.

If they simply want to delay the count to try to push it past inauguration day they probably could. They could object to ever state. Trump will lose, so putting Trumps votes at risk would not be an issue if their only intention is to delay. It would take up to 102 hours of debate. Plus moving back and forth between the individual sessions and the joint session.

They could do daily recesses, but no recess is allowed 5 days after the count begins. I think they would need a majority vote in the Senate to recess the Senate.

They could further delay by constantly raising points of order during the joint session.

A group of Republicans could walk out of the joint session so that there isn't a quorum. That has been tried before. In that case, the President of the Senate (Vice President) declared that the session could not recess and just resumed the count.

The count is done by 4 tellers consisting of a Representative and Senator for each party. A Republican teller could intentionally by mistake read a state's votes as being for Trump/Pence instead of Biden/Harris in order to force Democrats to object and hope that the Senate won't sustain the objection.

There probably will be all sorts of shenanigans and tomfoolery on January 6.

The problem is the Constitution clearly says the Electoral College vote happens during a joint session on January 6th. The Senate HAS to appear. It cannot just say were not going to show up so you cannot elect a new President.

Also,when there is an objection and it goes to separate sessions, the House can call a 5 minute electronic vote and take a an hour and fifty minute break while the Senate battles it out

 

[JoeMorgue]

I guess a memo was sent out to the White House staff acknowledging the transition (payroll stuff, etc.) which was followed by another memo instructing folk to ignore the previous memo.

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

 

[Mader Levap]

ALso a small group of armed civilkians resisting oppression worked pretty good in 1775...

Newsflash for you: it is 2020 now. People don't have weapons similar to what government had anymore. Second amendment wankfantasies have no bearing on reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unless there is some body empowered to intervene if a less than legitimate reason is offered, it's more of a guideline really...

This.

I'm so sick of Congress making rules on themselves and then going "LOL those are the rules" as if someone is going to stop them if they don't follow them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Unless there is some body empowered to intervene if a less than legitimate reason is offered, it's more of a guideline really...

If it ever happens that an objection is sustained by a vote of both houses of Congress, it's a safe bet that there will be an immediate lawsuit filed. The body empowered to intervene will be the Supreme Court.

But will a Congress who overturns an election listen to the Supreme Court?

At that point, it's all about the guns.


I think we are a long way from that, and it certainly won't happen with the 2020 election, but I think we have gotten just a tiny bit closer to that, and I think the people who supported it need to be smacked down, hard, for trying to ignore election results, even if they were just following sincerely held delusions.

But that smackdown won't happen. It's hard to see the future, but I think it will embolden people who will try to take it further next time.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Actually, they do. You're right about the rules of the joint session though. What legitimate means though I do not know.

The law says a Presentative and Senator may submit an objection in writing, then it goes to the House and Senate. It does not say anything about what would be a legitimate objection.

But the law does say "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."

If someone made an objection that the ground that cows are purple, it would probably be handled through procedural rules. I'm not very familiar with procedural rules and all the weird games that get played with them. I'm guessing the President of the Senate would say that object could not possibly result in the rejection of any votes. Then a point of order is raised that the House and Senate must vote. The President denies the point of order. Which brings another point of order to have the joint session vote on the President's determination. And so on.

But the objection doesn't really have to say anything more than the the votes were not regularly given or were not lawfully certified. That's what happened in 2004. Here is the objection, in it entirety:

We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.

That's it. Then it went to the House and Senate.

 

[acbytesla]

The law says a Presentative and Senator may submit an objection in writing, then it goes to the House and Senate. It does not say anything about what would be a legitimate objection.

But the law does say "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."

If someone made an objection that the ground that cows are purple, it would probably be handled through procedural rules. I'm not very familiar with procedural rules and all the weird games that get played with them. I'm guessing the President of the Senate would say that object could not possibly result in the rejection of any votes. Then a point of order is raised that the House and Senate must vote. The President denies the point of order. Which brings another point of order to have the joint session vote on the President's determination. And so on.

But the objection doesn't really have to say anything more than the the votes were not regularly given or were not lawfully certified. That's what happened in 2004. Here is the objection, in it entirety:

That's it. Then it went to the House and Senate.

Thanks for that.

 

[Thermal]

Newsflash for you: it is 2020 now. People don't have weapons similar to what government had anymore. Second amendment wankfantasies have no bearing on reality.

That's not the theory. No one expects the govt to launch nukes on civilian populations. The idea is that those teenage Marines will have second thoughts about what they are doing when they put their Uncle or neighbor in their sights.

Secondarily, say this pretend coup actually happened. Who has a better odds of putting it down in any scenario: an unarmed guy or one with a rifle?

 

[Paul2]

The problem is the Constitution clearly says the Electoral College vote happens during a joint session on January 6th. The Senate HAS to appear. It cannot just say were not going to show up so you cannot elect a new President.

Also,when there is an objection and it goes to separate sessions, the House can call a 5 minute electronic vote and take a an hour and fifty minute break while the Senate battles it out

That's not my reading. From Article II, sec. 1:

The President of the Senate shall, . . . open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

I think that says that the vote already happened, and the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 is when the EC votes are counted.

/nitpick

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The problem is the Constitution clearly says the Electoral College vote happens during a joint session on January 6th. The Senate HAS to appear. It cannot just say were not going to show up so you cannot elect a new President.

It appears that the House and Senate do vote on resolution to meet to count the votes. That is really just a formality to establish why regular business is being interrupted. But there could be circumstances where there is a disaster or some other emergency where they would need to put off counting the votes.

I'm not sure what happens if the Senate decides not to vote to provide for the counting of votes. It's possible someone may try that as a stunt. It won't work. But none of this stuff is going to work and it does appear some people are going to do it anyway.

Also,when there is an objection and it goes to separate sessions, the House can call a 5 minute electronic vote and take a an hour and fifty minute break while the Senate battles it out

The House does not have cloture procedures. I think they have to keep going until there are no more objections or the two hours runs out. Likely there would be many members of the House speaking from both sides of the aisle.

I'm sure many members of Congress are right now pouring through the Congressional Record from January 6, 2005, to get all the votes from that debacle and all the quotes about how this objection was necessary and quotes about "sour grapes" and "get over it".

 

[acbytesla]

The House does not have cloture procedures. I think they have to keep going until there are no more objections or the two hours runs out. Likely there would be many members of the House speaking from both sides of the aisle.

I'm pretty sure a member can move to hear the previous question. This can be voted on. This ends debate and calls the vote.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh don't worry about it, your both wrong anyway.

I knew that. I was just testing people.

Ishmael is the narrator, Ahab is the obsessed captain who goes down with the whale.

I read it ages ago, brain cells are a little rusty.

BTW, it's you're not your.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I guess a memo was sent out to the White House staff acknowledging the transition (payroll stuff, etc.) which was followed by another memo instructing folk to ignore the previous memo.

The one-size-fits-all tweet:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, but where does Ru fit into all this?

That took a minute, but then it came to me. More slow brain cells.

 

[rdaneel]

I knew that. I was just testing people.

Ishmael is the narrator, Ahab is the obsessed captain who goes down with the whale.

I read it ages ago, brain cells are a little rusty.

BTW, it's you're not your.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The grammatical error whale has bested me again!

 

[angrysoba]

That's not the theory. No one expects the govt to launch nukes on civilian populations. The idea is that those teenage Marines will have second thoughts about what they are doing when they put their Uncle or neighbor in their sights.

Secondarily, say this pretend coup actually happened. Who has a better odds of putting it down in any scenario: an unarmed guy or one with a rifle?

The teenage marine won’t have to do anything. The guy with the rifle will be turned to pink mist by a drone. And you’ll always find someone who will be prepared to do that. The gesture would be pretty futile.

 

[Thermal]

The teenage marine won’t have to do anything. The guy with the rifle will be turned to pink mist by a drone. And you’ll always find someone who will be prepared to do that. The gesture would be pretty futile.

Droning citizens on US soil would be...pretty extreme. I would think in the event of conflict that conventional ground troops would be sent in to quell a resistance.

If they get down to pink-misting US citizens at home, we are pretty much done anyway.