Did you follow that? At the very least, you can see that the joint resolution adopted by the 117th Congress did not include the requirement of the statute that objections to any given slate of electors be made in writing, nor did it include the time limitations on debate over any given objection. And if you understood the remainder of the statute, you qualify for an advanced degree in statutory construction. But if you didn’t, join the innumerable ranks of legal scholars who have disagreed over the meaning and application of these provisions.
A. S. Haley
January 5, 2020
The Coming Donnybrook of January 6 (Part III)
[Via email from Mike B.
The post describes the maze of dark and twisty legal passages through which our U.S. representatives and Senators are going to traverse today.
It will be a day for the history books.—Joe]
The biggest question is why we’re doing this at all.
The frustration is understandable, but the process being followed today is utterly unconstitutional, as is obvious to anyone who reads article 2. It may be doing what some law authorized back in the days just after the Civil War, but that doesn’t mean the law has any connection to the plain English words of the Constitution.
This evening on Fox (“Special Report”) Rep. Crenshaw made that point very explicitly. I hope he submits a bill to repeal that objection process. If he does, it will be very entertaining to see how the Dems vote.
Virulently anti-gun “Christian” minister turns out to be a child molester.