Help with an argument

[TlalocW]

I've had someone tell me that the House passing a bill back in September that clarifies the role of the Vice-President in certifying the presidential election as purely ceremonial is an admission that Pence actually did have the power to do what Trump and his minions wanted. Maybe I'm tired, but I can't come up with a cogent counter-argument.

[dpibel]

1. Clarification

The issue hadn't been decided before.

Making it perfectly clear defines what happens going forward.

That doesn't define one way or the other what the status was before.

[elleng]

2. Clause 3 Electoral College Count

And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

SHALL, mandatory.

The President of the Senate announces the results of the State vote and then calls for any objections. To be recognized, an objection must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator.

[Frasier Balzov]

3. It's just dealing with the reality that a willful misinterpretation of the 1887 Act

is subject to tyrannical abuse.

[dchill]

4. This shows that obeying the law is optional for the butthurt.

[KS Toronado]

5. It was not an admission that Pence had the power

to do anything against the will of the people/voters. It got updated to tell elected reQublicOns
OK you dumb MFers you'll never get to try that shit again.

[malaise]

6. This should help

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=775805

[quaint]

7. +++