2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
some parts of the attempt might have been "actually" (de iure) illegal , wrt state laws.
but the attempt to have Pence disregard slates he disapproved of wasn't illegal at all which is why they had to change the law about it
The Act aimed to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes, instead placing the primary responsibility to resolve disputes upon the states.[4][5] The Act set out procedures and deadlines for the states to follow in resolving disputes, certifying results, and sending the results to Congress. If a state followed these "safe harbor" standards and the state's governor properly submitted one set of electoral votes, the Act stated that this "final" determination "shall govern."[6][7] However, making or use of "any false writing or document" in the implementation of this procedure was a felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment by 18 U.S. Code 1001 under Chapter 47 Fraud and False Statements. The Act thus relegated Congress to resolving only a narrow class of disputes, such as if a governor had certified two different slates of electors or if a state failed to certify its results under the Act's procedures.[8] Congress could also reject votes under the Act for other specific defects, such as ministerial error, if an elector or candidate was ineligible for office, or if the electoral college votes were not "regularly given."[8][9]
Presenting false slates of electors is strictly illegal. Since the states had already certified true slates during the safe harbor positions it was not proper to reject them.
You’re talking out of your ass right now and it shows.
Alright, assuming that is true, I'll grant you that carve-out. I still maintain that the phrasing "de facto illegal/de jure illegal" sounds massively stilted, and it seems that a cursory Google search agrees. It's just not something with any legal training would ever say.
They are legal terms lol
in common law that's more common than you think.
in the UK in particular you have an unwritten constitution, so nothing is de iure unconstitutional, because there is no written, actual, factual, objective law or statute being broken, but DE FACTO, ie in actuality, practically, some laws or decisions or whatever will be deemed unconstitutional
I know what the terms "de facto" and "de jure" mean. I was questioning their use specifically as a modifier to the term "illegal". In particular "de jure illegal" has to be nonsense. It literally means "illegal in law".
No, they are not. You are still having some comprehension issues. "De facto" and "de jure" are legal terms. "De facto illegal" and "de jure illegal" are terms you made up. You don't get to take legal terms, add your own words and then call the results legal terms.
Presenting false slates of electors is strictly illegal. Since the states had already certified true slates during the safe harbor positions it was not proper to reject them.
You’re talking out of your ass right now and it shows.
It was not proper so long as the independent state legislature theory of Article II was wrong
I know what the terms "de facto" and "de jure" mean. I was questioning their use specifically as a modifier to the term "illegal". In particular "de jure illegal" has to be nonsense.
You really going to try and weasel this into a grammatical complaint?
It literally means "illegal in law".
As opposed to in practice/tradition/common belief/behavioral precedent.
If I had said: "The attempt was neither de facto nor de jure" no one would have had any clue what I was saying.
Presenting false slates of electors is strictly illegal. Since the states had already certified true slates during the safe harbor positions it was not proper to reject them.
You’re talking out of your ass right now and it shows.
It's hilarious actually. The idea seemed to be that since states are not bound to cast their electors for the winner of the popular vote in their state, literally anyone can just create a slate of electors and present them.
hope you're right. in my mind trump has already won and i'm watching a nightmare unfold in slow motion while half the country convinces themselves there's a blue chance. trump leads or ties in all swing state aggregate polls which have been systematically D-biased last two cycles.
my impression based on reporting was trump had improved with minorities vs. 2020
Recent polling tells a different story.
https://thegrio.com/2024/10/28/kamala-ha...
There are others.
There are also many recent polls from conservative aligned pollsters that seem bizarre to me. For example Atlas Intel had a poll that has trump winning 46% of black voters in wisconsin.
You really going to try and weasel this into a grammatical complaint? As opposed to in practice/tradition/common belief/behavioral precedent.
If I had said: "The attempt was neither de facto nor de jure" no one would have had any clue what I was saying.
Like I said "de facto nor de jure prohibited" would have been fine. I said that straight away, so it was always a grammatical complaint. Reading comprehension failure on your part does not constitute "weaseling" on my part.
When you write something that translates to "illegal in law", you give yourself away as not understanding what the terms you are using actually mean, at least not fully. Would you write "illegal in law" in English?
Ok, I can get behind the idea that these activities exist. I am not getting behind the term "de jure illegal" as something that doesn't sound ridiculous. If one of the real lawyers here tells me I'm wrong, I'll have to eat crow, but until and unless that happens, I think you guys are making up stuff you think sounds smart.
It was not proper so long as the independent state legislature theory of Article II was wrong
Not sure what you mean, do you mean that on the case of independent state legislature theory being incorrect, that it would be illegal? If so the SC already adjudicated that.
Also not even sure that ISL would have helped their case in this situation since surely they are bound by their own laws either way. And it doesn’t implicate Pence’s role in certifying the result since if he already receives the certification within that timeframe he doesn’t have recourse to consider the uncertified slate.
Using the guy who scammed welfare as proof of character is certainly a choice
I'm tired, boss.
Recent polling tells a different story.
https://thegrio.com/2024/10/28/kamala-ha...
There are others.
There are also many recent polls from conservative aligned pollsters that seem bizarre to me. For example Atlas Intel had a poll that has trump winning 46% of black voters in wisconsin.
My god someone else finally noticed how *(@)#ing stupid atlasintel polls are. I FEEL SEEN
what part of the constitution are you referring to that you think is relevant and what state laws is it alleged to be overriding?
Keep in mind I am being devil's advocate right now and trying to explain what Trump's legal team were thinking about this loophole. State laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional by definition. If the ISL were true, then Pence had the right to return slates to the legislatures or confirm alternate slates. Since electoral rules are laid out in Article II, Pence violating (lower order) state laws to follow his constitutional duties (as interpreted) as VP would not be considered illegal. A good analogy is the President ordering the killing of someone he deems a threat to the country without a death warrant; he has executive authority in the Constitution to do so and that authority 'overrides' any criminal code law against murder.
Not sure what you mean, do you mean that on the case of independent state legislature theory being incorrect, that it would be illegal? If so the SC already adjudicated that.
Also not even sure that ISL would have helped their case in this situation since surely they are bound by their own laws either way. And it doesn’t implicate Pence’s role in certifying the result since if he already receives the certification within that timeframe he doesn’t have recourse to consider the uncertified slate.
They adjudicated it in 2023, three years after 2020.
Prohibited, forbidden, disallowed, outlawed, illegal, take your pick. As opposed to allowed, permitted, authorized or legal.
I said that straight away, so it was always a grammatical complaint. Reading comprehension failure on your part does not constitute "weaseling" on my part.
Then why did you ask for an example of de facto law?
When you write something that translates to "illegal in law", you give yourself away as not understanding what the terms you are using actually mean, at least not fully. Would you write "illegal in law" in English?
Illegal as written, sure, why not?
Two of those are different from the other two in the context of this discussion. Do you see why?
After I made the grammatical complaint I started thinking whether I could think of any examples of the phenomenon in practice (I always knew what you meant in theory) and I couldn't. You and Luciom have since provided some examples.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. The question was would you ever say "illegal by law" or "illegal in law" in English?
Nothing to see here at all, I'm sure they musta passed a law in MI that lets a single voter cast 29 votes. Seems fair why not.
Keep in mind I am being devil's advocate right now and trying to explain what Trump's legal team were thinking about this loophole. State laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional by definition. If the ISL were true, then Pence had the right to return slates to the legislatures or confirm alternate slates. Since electoral rules are laid out in Article II, Pence violating (lower order) state laws to follow his constitutional duties (as interpreted) as VP would not be considered i
Ok these posts taken together make more sense. If you are playing Devil’s advocate then you are free to make whatever arguments you want. The problem is when you do indeed falsify a slate of electors in order to overturn an election, whether we want to call it legal or illegal (and I certainly believe that Trump didn’t care if it was or wasn’t) we’re still not getting to the morality of it. It fails the reasonable person standard because no reasonable person would think it was ok to falsify slates of electors. The fact that some of the slates said “on condition of being certified” and others didn’t shows they knew there was something wrong going on.
Also on the flip side, if the ISL was legal that doesn’t give the vice president access to any of that, as the ISL itself would not be talking about federal law but whether state legislatures can ignore state law and certify in whatever manner they want by a simple majority.
At the very least you realize that if Trump got his way there would have been a gigantic consitutional crisis, confusion, possible military coups due to wanting to prevent Trump from taking power, counter coups to allow him to take power. 200+ years of history gone overnight. This is again on the most charitable reading of all the facts.
“Just say there were problems and let me handle the rest”
