Congress eyes strongest response yet to Jan. 6 attack

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are voting this week on changes to a 19th century law for certifying presidential elections, their strongest legislative response yet to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The vote to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, expected Wednesday, comes as a bipartisan group of senators is moving forward with a similar bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said they want to change the arcane law before it is challenged again.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
 
BidenPresident said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are voting this week on changes to a 19th century law for certifying presidential elections, their strongest legislative response yet to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The vote to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, expected Wednesday, comes as a bipartisan group of senators is moving forward with a similar bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said they want to change the arcane law before it is challenged again.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
Click to expand...

So they want to federalize elections.
 
Yakuda said:
So they want to federalize elections.
Click to expand...

Federal elections are already federalized, dumbass.

Now claim the election was stolen but never do anything about it. :rofl2:


For those who never read the link: Pence refused to do so, but it was clear afterward that there was no real legal framework, or recourse, to respond under the 1887 law if the vice president had tried to block the count. The House and Senate bills would better define the vice president’s ministerial role and make clear that he or she has no say in the final outcome.
 
BidenPresident said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are voting this week on changes to a 19th century law for certifying presidential elections, their strongest legislative response yet to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The vote to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, expected Wednesday, comes as a bipartisan group of senators is moving forward with a similar bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said they want to change the arcane law before it is challenged again.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
Click to expand...

What time does it start?
 
Like the Senate bill, the House legislation would require that there is a single set of electors from each state submitted by the governor. The House bill would also narrow the grounds on which members of Congress could object to any state’s electoral votes and raise the threshold for how many objections would be needed. Currently, the House and Senate each debate and vote on whether to accept a state’s electors if there is just one objection from each chamber.

The House bill would require instead that a third of the House and a third of the Senate object to a particular state’s electors in order to hold a vote. The Senate bill would require that a fifth of each chamber object.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
 
BidenPresident said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are voting this week on changes to a 19th century law for certifying presidential elections, their strongest legislative response yet to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The vote to overhaul the Electoral Count Act, expected Wednesday, comes as a bipartisan group of senators is moving forward with a similar bill. Lawmakers in both parties have said they want to change the arcane law before it is challenged again.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
Click to expand...

They cannot legislate a constitutional requirement. They would have to amend the constitution you brain dead, uneducated dumbass. :palm:
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Federal elections are already federalized, dumbass.

Now claim the election was stolen but never do anything about it. :rofl2:


For those who never read the link: Pence refused to do so, but it was clear afterward that there was no real legal framework, or recourse, to respond under the 1887 law if the vice president had tried to block the count. The House and Senate bills would better define the vice president’s ministerial role and make clear that he or she has no say in the final outcome.
Click to expand...

Yakuda's reply is beyond stupid.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Federal elections are already federalized, dumbass.
Click to expand...

So sayeth the dumbass. No, Presidential elections are not federalized. Where do you come up with such bullshit? MSNBC?

Dutch Uncle said:
Now claim the election was stolen but never do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Another pointless and stupid post. You're quite full of them sad sack. :palm:

Dutch Uncle said:
For those who never read the link: Pence refused to do so, but it was clear afterward that there was no real legal framework, or recourse, to respond under the 1887 law if the vice president had tried to block the count. The House and Senate bills would better define the vice president’s ministerial role and make clear that he or she has no say in the final outcome.
Click to expand...


Delaying the formal counting of electoral votes is not illegal. In fact, it is quite within the legal constraints of elections. Again, it wasn't about "blocking" the count. It was "delaying" the count to give more time to verify the stunning, unheard of number of votes based on unsecured ballot drop boxes and mail in ballots.

Most other democracies severely restrict it, and/or have strict voting ID requirements. many European countries have voting rules stricter to prevent fraud than what we have in the United States. For example, 74% entirely ban absentee voting for citizens who live in their country. Another 6% allow it, but have very restrictive rules, such as limiting it to those in the military or are in a hospital, and they require evidence that those conditions are met. Another 15% allow absentee ballots but require that one has to present a photo voter ID to acquire it. Thirty-five percent of European countries completely ban absentee ballots for even those living outside their country. The pattern is similar for developed countries.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/voting-by-mail-how-other-countries-do-it.php

Again, if you have to shout down anyone who questions the legitimacy of the last election and demand they say it was FAIR and to SHUT UP, then something is terribly wrong. But alas, you're a dumbass who parrots DNC narratives and have a severe case of TDS.
 
Celticguy said:
Laws generally get written for a reason. What was the reason that law got written ?

An actual journalist would have looked that up to help the reader understand context.

But, of course, journalists are rare as unicorns anymore.
Click to expand...

The House and Senate are trying to make it clear that the Electoral count is a formal process, mostly ceremonial.
 
BidenPresident said:
Like the Senate bill, the House legislation would require that there is a single set of electors from each state submitted by the governor. The House bill would also narrow the grounds on which members of Congress could object to any state’s electoral votes and raise the threshold for how many objections would be needed. Currently, the House and Senate each debate and vote on whether to accept a state’s electors if there is just one objection from each chamber.

The House bill would require instead that a third of the House and a third of the Senate object to a particular state’s electors in order to hold a vote. The Senate bill would require that a fifth of each chamber object.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...lection-2020-2eb7ce4953da28532b62b0bb71f2f657
Click to expand...

The Federal Government cannot mandate how States conduct their elections. That's a Constitutional issue dipshit. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top