As then-Vice President Mike Pence hid for his life during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the lawyer who’d been advising Donald Trump on his efforts to steal a second term denounced Pence in an email, saying that he should have used a 130-year-old law to reject the will of millions of voters.
“It needs to be modernized,” he said of the law. “The legislation is 130 years old.”
I agree. Using an outdated law to shield yourself from prosecution is contemptible.
They don’t need to go back quite as far to find a Sedition act…
Unfortunately we’ve gotten to the point where the fascistgop will never agree to any legislation that will hamper their ability to steal elections. We’ve seen what they think of the right to vote.
They are a ruthless and ugly cult and proudly declare that they will use violence to get their way on any and all matters related to public policy.
And with Manchin and Sinema willing to support the fascistgop’s goal of ending our democracy, we’ve got a tough road ahead to return sanity to our political landscape.
“The legislation is 130 years old”
So did Grassley vote for or against?
With the logic of the legislation being 130 years old and needing updating, the same argument should be used for the Constitution, which is a whole lot older. Yes, the C has been re-vamped some 27 times with amendments, but using the logic of the age of the law is a slippery slope that opens the door for a whole lot of other legislation to be re-vamped.
ETA: for the record, the 27th amendment was ratified in 1992.
The 27th Amendment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
There are two major parties in this nation, but only one of them would stoop to vacating state electors in a Presidential election and overturning the results of the ballot. Why would that party agree to change or perfect a law that gives them the window to cheat their way into the Oval Office? Congress isn’t fixing this, because half of Congress views it as a possibly needed arrow in their quiver in the future.
!30 year old law is criticized for hard to interpret language. That can get fixed. But toss a law becase it is old? No. The Constitution is old…do we throw it out because of it’s age?
He was too busy dropping off Mitch McConnell at the senior citizen center.
If we want this – or ANYTHING – done, we need to elect more Democrats to Congress. Last Tuesday’s election wasn’t all that hopeful, but could provide useful lessons, if folks would just stop running down Terry McAuliffe and start taking a wider, more expansive, and less biased view.
Lesson One: Democrats need to learn how to communicate.
Lesson Two: Blame the Republicans. Over and over, nonstop. There’s plenty of material there.
No, but the calls to do so are increasing, with repeated requests/demands for a new Constitutional convention by very few, but still some.
celebrates those who keep their oaths “even when it hurts.”
So, it “hurt” you to do your job and honor your oath to your country?
Please elaborate, Mikey.
I bet plenty of families and friends of dead American service people would love to hear.
Heck, yeah!! Did you not see the several hundred crazed yahoos who were screaming for Pence’s blood? All he had to do was go through with The Plan (aka The Coup de tat) and they would have been celebrating him, not building a gallows for him. In fact, I’m sure there are lots of trumpies who are still gunning (literally) for Mike Pence.
Unfortunately, until there is filibuster reform (or abolition), no substantive legislation will be passed with GQP votes. McConnell thinks he still runs the Senate; with the help of Manchinema, he’s not completely wrong.
Chin up, everyone. If the R’s win in 2024, well then Kamala Harris can just toss out enough electoral votes to keep Biden in office. I’m sure they’ll be gracious in accepting that.
Did Eastman have a plan that didn’t involve overturning every Republican victory in those states?
Assuming this gets done, and elections are more secure than before, we have to assume the GQP will find unseen fissures and exploit whatever they find.
As it is only Republicans can take advantage, don’t expect them to disarm unilaterally.
While everyone so far has opined on the EC there must be discussion to eliminate the Electoral College. We all understand that that the EC at its inception was based on Land and not on Population. The Constitution grants each state 2 senators and this skews the electors granted to each state. This concept results in rural states being able to decide the President with a minority, Reveiw the past elections and the majority of Presidents have been chosen with a minority of the popular votes. A major drawback to eliminating the EC would the coastal states have the majority of the population and the interior and flyover states would have minimal if any impact on chosing the President. There are people smarter than me so I would like hear some ideas.
One of our basic tenets is “Of the People, For the People, and By the People”. Our EC violates this by being "Of the Land, For the Land, and by By the Land.