If anything is unconstitutional about the Electoral Count Act

[Proud liberal 80]

It’s that members of Congress get to object at all....I read both the 12th Amendment and The Act...


the 12 Amendment is straightforward 1. State electors vote in their respective states and send vote to VP 2. The VP opens the vote 3. There is a count of the vote 4. If someone wins the majority of electors then they are POTUS 5. If no one wins a majority then the House (by state delegation) selects the POTUS and the Senate selects the VP...to me, Congress has no role but to hear the votes

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xii

The electoral act establishes that one Congressman and Senator can object and if they do then both houses have to vote on that objection. If both houses are split then the objection fails

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

[marie999]

1. Congress has to send President Biden a new law that supersedes 3 U.S. Code 15

that makes it harder for Congress to nullify electoral college votes.

[PoliticAverse]

2. The only way to know the answer to that one for sure is to bring a case to the Supreme Court...

As that is unlikely to occur in this election we won't know for sure. We don't even know if the act is actually binding on Congress as it is written. For more background on the Act, see the Wikipedia page....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

[Proud liberal 80]

3. Yeah I get that

I guess my OP is more about Gohmert’s suit calling it unconstitutional because it somehow limited the VP’s power...when I read both I saw nothing in either giving VP any power, but was surprised with the power that the Law gave congress vs what the constitution says and found it ironic that he was suing

[Chainfire]

4. We are witnessing a slow motion coup

Politicians, or lawyers who suggest violence in an attempt to overthrow the legally elected government should have already been arrested.

The rebels in the congress feel that they are invincible in their efforts to install a Republican Dictator. Every participant needs to be closely examined by a tough AG to see if the moves rise to the legal definition of sedition, and if so they need to treated harshly under the law as a warning to the next people who want to overthrow the government.

Anyone showing up armed on the 6th in violation of local laws need to feel the long arm of the law on their shoulders. What ever is necessary to enforce the law. If someone wants to drive across the country to confront the legal government, they need to learn what a confrontation looks like. If someone wants to be a militiaman, let the join the military service.

If we don't get a handle on the people who are willing to do violence to get their way we will follow the 1930s Germans on their road to destruction. We can't sit back and act like what is happening is any kind of normal.

8 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[Make7]

5. I wonder why it took them 133 years to discover we shouldn't be certifying elections this way...

(according to them)

For a Republican, the law is intended to interpreted in a way that is most beneficial to them at the present moment.