Congress can not count Trump's votes tomorrow, and Harris would become president.

[ColinC]

This article by two Supreme Court clerks was written a couple weeks ago in The Hill. Congress does have the power to stop Trump from becoming president if they fulfilled their constitutional duty to prevent an insurrectionist from holding office.

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5055171-constitution-insurrection-trump-disqualification/

To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president.

The plain wording from the 14th amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Congress can and should block Trump from becoming president, since the constitution is clear about the fact he is unqualified to hold office. If we are going to be purists and honor the electoral college despite a candidate losing the popular vote because the constitution is clear about the rules, we can and should keep a winning candidate from holding office, again, because the constitution is clear about the rules: an insurrectionist is unqualified to receive electoral college votes and congress must not count those votes he is ineligible to receive. The alternative would be for congress to allow an insurrectionist to hold office with a 2/3rds vote. There is no other constitutional way about it.

[Clouds Passing]

1. WISH 🙏🏼

[ColinC]

2. No wish or hope here. Just clearly what is legal. Congress certifying Trump should be considered a major illegal act.

Based on the clear wording of the constitution.

[live love laugh]

13. And if it's illegal who's going to hold them accountable?

[ColinC]

15. If we decide that ultimately the constitution no longer matters

And we can continue doing things against the clear stated words of the constitution, then it no longer becomes an issue of accountability, but rather whether the constitution even still matters. Lawlessness will be the result.

[live love laugh]

66. Lawlessness is already happening. There's no accountability.

[Captain Zero]

74. The Supreme Court

Is already a rogue institution.
Taking bribes and not recusing themselves.

Trump will resume his practice of cashing in emoluments.

My guess is the Senate will adjourn and Trump will appoint a lawless cabinet.

[Clouds Passing]

65. Yes, he should not be certified.

[ForgedCrank]

3. That's a great idea,

over-ride the voters. This would be the very definition of "installed". That would look so good that they would surely vote with us next time.

[ColinC]

6. "Override the voters?" Like in 2016 and 2000?

Following the constitution is not "installing" anyone. It's literally following the constitution. If 2000 and 2016 was okay when overriding the voters, so is this. It is almost the exact same thing because it is following the rules. If the electoral college can override the popular vote, so can the 14th amendement.

[nuxvomica]

32. They voted for Trump didn't they?

Why didn't his insurrection convince enough people not to vote for him? And that wasn't even legal but this would be. I don't see your reasoning here.

[biophile]

55. More people voted for and wanted someone not drumpf

So the will of the people would in fact be upheld! 😏
But I agree with you that it would be problematic and definitely not a good look. MAGAT land would bring out their 2A solution

[Jeebo]

4. I agree, but it ain't gonna happen.

I'd love to see that happen, but get real, it's a fantasy.

— Ron

[ColinC]

5. Yeah totally. Upholding the rule of law has been a pipe dream for a while now...

However, every member of Congress who votes to certify these results should be horribly shamed.

[magicarpet]

7. Over ride the voters,...hell no....

.... let's shit trash the US Constitution and tear it up to shreds,... then feed it to the pigs to augment their diet.

Fuck the Constitution,.. who needs that old obsolete document.

[ColinC]

8. Following the constitution means "overriding the voters"

It's the same as prioritizing the electoral ollege over the popular vote. If we certify these votes, the constitution means nothing.

The 14th amendment is very clear:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

If Congress does not want to override the voters, they must vote for an exception by a 2/3rds vote. That is, if the constitution means anything anymore.

[magicarpet]

9. .

[Kaleva]

18. Has Trump been convicted of insurrection or rebellion?

Doesn't the Fifth Amendment come into play here?

[ColinC]

19. If you mean due process, the 5th amendement applies to life liberty and property

Holding office is neither of those things.

The guidelines for holding office are clearly spelled out by the constitution. You cannot be an insurrectionist. There is nothing that says you needed to be convicted of insurrection.

Of course, it also says you need a 2 3rds vote to remove the disability. Congress must vote by a 2 3rds majority to remove that disability if they are going to certify his votes.

[Kaleva]

20. Again, isn't a person presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law?

[ColinC]

21. Again the stipulation for holding office is clear

Holding office has nothing to do with holding somebody criminally responsible for something. This is not a court of law. It is following the rules of the constitution.

[Kaleva]

34. Here are your words

"because the constitution is clear about the rules: an insurrectionist is unqualified to receive electoral college votes and congress must not count those votes he is ineligible to receive. "

In what manner does the Constitution prescribe to determine if a person is an insurrectionist? What is the procedure that is to be followed?

[ColinC]

38. .

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3367627

[Kaleva]

45. So Congress has the authority to decide if he's an insurrectionist or not

If they decide he isn't, which is likely to happen, then the Constitution is being followed and your argument has no standing.

[ColinC]

47. My argument is they need to decide it.

If they certify without first deciding whether he is with a 2/3rds vote, it is illegal. They should take the vote before deciding the electoral votes. That would be the constitutional legal process and I would be absolutely satisfied.

[Kaleva]

50. According to the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to decide if they need to address it or not

Nobody outside of Congress has the authority to make them decide. Not even the Supreme Court.

[ColinC]

53. According to the constitution, Congress has the responsibility to decide it.

[Kaleva]

57. They won't for the same reason they didn't for Biden

Neither Biden or Trump have been convicted of insurrection so there was and is no reason for Congress to bring it up .

Your argument in your OP is based on the premise that Trump is an insurrectionist. However, he has not been convicted of such and according to the Constitution, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

[ColinC]

48. For instance

If half of Congress votes to certify the electoral votes for Trump while believing he is an insurrectionist, that would be illegal. They should follow the process and decide by a 2/3rds vote that he is not.

[Kaleva]

59. Wouldn't that half have to file a petition?

To show that they believe that Trump is an insurrectionist?

[Kaleva]

60. From your OP

"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes"

A petition must first be filed by at least 20% of Congress. No decision can be made until that happens first

[bucolic_frolic]

54. Representative Democracy requires incumbents to exercise judgment

always in opposition to some voters. It's not pure democracy where majority rules on every issue.

[thatdemguy]

64. Do we really want to be a pure democracy for the next 2-4 years?

Or do we want things like the filibuster, and the ability of the minority to actually be able to speak up?

[Renew Deal]

10. This is not happening

[ColinC]

11. If they do not remove the disability by a 2/3rds vote, it will be an illegal certification.

[Renew Deal]

22. Technically they are not obligated to

So it won’t be “illegal.”

[ColinC]

29. Technically they are because the constitution requires them to.

Anything not in line with the constitution, the supreme law of the land, is illegal.

Again

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[Renew Deal]

37. Only if it is determined to be illegal.

This isn’t happening, so people can enjoy their moral superiority while those in power will enjoy its benefits.

[ColinC]

40. Not how it works.

If you swipe a candy bar in the store, you are committing a crime even if nobody cares. Same as if you let an insurrectionist hold office without voting by 2/3rds vote to remove the disability.

[Renew Deal]

51. And this is why this is fan fiction

It’s nice to talk about, but it’s not happening.

[tritsofme]

39. It's not illegal to have a different opinion than yours. That's why these are called "political questions"

[ColinC]

41. The words of the constitution are clear.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not following it, is by definition, illegal. Whether it is treated as so is different from whether it is the case.

[tritsofme]

43. It is a political question for Congress to decide, disagreeing with you doesn't mean something illegal has happened.

[ColinC]

46. Disagreement has nothing to do with anything.

The constitution makes clear what it means. We can follow it or ignore it. Again, not following it would be illegal. You or I can disagree all day and it doesn't matter. The words are clear and I would hope that congress follows the constitutional process.

[tritsofme]

56. The words are clear to you personally. However this is a political, not a legal, determination to be made by Congress.

When the vast majority of Democratic congressmen and senators vote to certify, they will not be acting “illegally”

[ColinC]

72. For all intents and purposes my use of the word "illegal" is fairly meaningless

But still, through the clear worded language of the constitution, that characterization would appear to be true.

[FBaggins]

68. It really does

The laws on murder couldn’t be clearer… but you aren’t given discretion to apply the consequences of breaking that law. The constitution requires the unanimous agreement by a jury after a grand jury issues an indictment.

Similarly - it doesn’t matter how clear “insurrection” is you or me… or tens of millions. Insurrection is a federal crime (and was when the amendment was written). If he wasn’t charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection- then the amendment doesn’t apply to him.

This nonsense is structurally no different than Trump’s BS of four years ago today.

[ColinC]

70. I surrender!!

[summer_in_TX]

12. The Supreme Court already ruled that Article 3 of the 14th Amendment required Congress to pass

enabling legislation, didn't they?

I think the ruling was wrong and politically motivated, like I thought it was when SCOTUS stopped the counting of the ballots in Bush v. Gore. But like it or not, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of the law.

The kind of scenario you envision would constitute a constitutional crisis, seems to me.

[ColinC]

14. The article i shared explained how the scotus ruling doesnt actually apply to certification

The constitution is clear that congress still needs to remove the disability by a 2/3rds vote. They still have not done this. Having an insurrectionist be allowed to be president is what I would consider a constitutional crisis if not following the rules of the constitution.

[Renew Deal]

23. The article is fan fiction

[ColinC]

25. It is written by supreme court clerks

And cites the plain language of the constitution. If it is fan fiction, so is the constitution.

[thatdemguy]

67. And an article written by a supreme court clerk has no legal meaning

Or grounds to be up held in any court.

[FBaggins]

69. It's written by two former clerks

There are many hundreds of former SCOTUS clerks out there… and they found TWO who clerked for a justice who came off the court almost 45 years ago.


You think several hundred of their peers just missed it?

Or isn’t it more likely that you’re playing the “Hey! Its only 98% of climate scientist who agree!” Game?

[ColinC]

76. ...

[FBaggins]

80. Sorry - I had no intent to pile on

That reply appears to have been made as you posted your earlier surrender.

[ColinC]

81. No worries!

I appreciate the spirited debate, but alas I was fighting an uphill battle -on the edge of a cliff more like it...

[Morbius]

16. Yeah.

I agree that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. But the Supreme Court has made a ruling. The fact is, the will of the people has been made clear. Trump won with a majority of the vote - a small majority, but a majority nonetheless. This would be seen a parliamentary maneuver to overcome the will of the people - with a technicality. Politically, it's a disastrous idea.

[ColinC]

26. Again if congress wants to abide by the constitution and honor the will of the people they can do that

By voting 2/3rds to remove the disability. But until they do that, they will not be abiding by the clear language of the 14th amendment.

[usonian]

17. Maybe a snowstorm will do what the Krump army failed to do.

Let any person here who never wished for a snow day at school cast the first snowball.

[ColinC]

27. 🤔

[MichMan]

24. Is Putin behind this proposal in order to create a civil war?

[ColinC]

28. Putin would love for us to ignore the constitution

Again, if you read the OP, you'll see that congress just needs to vote by a 2/3rds majority to remove the disability? What's the problem with that?

[Morbius]

31. I think you know.

I very much doubt you're stupid enough to believe a 2/3 vote on anything is possible in today's Congress. This is a hyper-partisan era. Congress can't cast a 2/3 vote recognizing the sky is blue. You cannot be so blind that you can't see the obvious fact that a significant portion of the country doesn't believe Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. To flatly declare that Trump did engage in insurrection - by decree, without any process that the people can see - will outrage a great chunk of the country.

What you want will cause civil war. And I don't think for a moment that you don't know that.

[ColinC]

42. The certification is likely going to be unanimous, or close to itactually.

Far over 2/3rds vote. 2/3rds is far from unrealistic and should be done on this case to satisfy any question about whether the law is followed.

.

[Takket]

36. There is no "disability". SCOTUS already killed this idea.

[ColinC]

49. Scotus said he can run for office

They maintained congress decide the rest.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Yes, and Dems in 2027 should push legislation & let tRump veto it; then push in 2029 and D Pres sign it

Congress should clearly define the terms and how the Amendment and ensuing cases and legislation are to be interpreted. The Constitution does not outline requirement for the Office but does for Officers and the President is surely an officer and servant of the people. I'm pretty sure the Constitution does not forbid Congress from adding requirements or restrictions but I'm not clear on that.

[VBNMW]

78. LOL!

LOL

[Self Esteem]

30. Let's storm the capitol and stop the vote!

[nuxvomica]

33. This would fail but they should at least try

They should not provide a 2/3 vote to certify as that could be interpreted by The Supreme Court as a removal of the Section 3 disability. I keep hearing from Democratic pols how Trump's policies are incredibly dangerous and should be fought so why not in this case?

[Takket]

35. You should probably set your eyes on something more realistic

Like aliens abducting drumpf and sending a clone of JFK to take over. Because that is more likely.

[MineralMan]

44. Pipe dream.

Not happening.

[Emile]

52. If this insurrection was done by Democrats,

you could bet Republicans would block.

[Orrex]

58. There's still time for him to just fucking die

[Hotler]

61. I guess the term 'domestic enemy' in the oaths of office is just there as fluff. nt

[Jose Garcia]

62. Even if Congress disregarded all of Trump's votes, Harris would not have an electoral vote majority

The decision would go to the House, with each state's delegation getting one vote. The GOP has a majority of members in 30 state delegations. There is no way in hell they would choose Harris or any other Democrat.

[FBaggins]

73. That part isn't actually true

It’s commonly reported that it goes to the House of nobody gets 270

But it’s actually when nobody gets a majority of the votes counted. If some of the votes are rejected there could still be a majority of those that were counted… even if below 270.

[DFW]

63. Maybe Mother Nature will step in.

The DC area was blanketed by a snow storm last night. My flight to Chicago was canceled, and I’m trying to figure out how to get outta here. If enough Senators and Reps can’t make it to the Capitol today, well, gee, what a shame that would be, right?

[nitpicked]

75. I'm sure beds were wheeled into the congresscritters offices

That didn't have that already.

Plus more for the staff ((gotta make sure to make the coffee))...

[VBNMW]

79. SAD

Sad replies to upholding the Constitution.

Not surprising though. Shades of 2000 all over again. Opposition party refuses put up any opposition. Scold people for not being enthused to vote for politicians who represent those who roll over in advance.

Then add insult to injury, "we should storm the capital". Absolutely no one here advocated for such a thing. Just that if you want a chance of ever reaching enough voters to win, SHOW SOME GODDAMN spine at least within the law.

Now THAT is wishcasting!

[Meowmee]

82. They won't do a damn thing to stop this train to hell