Can someone post a link to one of the better threads about laws of succession

[Sugarcoated]

in the hypothetical that crooked Donnie would try to "cancel" elections scenario?

I've seen many, advanced search brought up everything but.

[elleng]

1. 'The current Presidential Succession Act was adopted in 1947, and last revised in 2006.

The line of succession follows the order of: vice president, speaker of the House of Representatives, president pro tempore of the Senate, and then the eligible heads of federal executive departments who form the president's Cabinet.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

[Mike Niendorff]

2. 20th Amendment

* 20th Amendment
* Presidential Succession Act

Presidential and Vice Presidential terms end at noon 1/20/21, no exceptions.

If there is a vacancy in the office at that time, the next in line for the Presidency is the Speaker of the House, whose term does not end until the next Speaker of the House is sworn in (ie: if there is no election, it *will* be Nancy Pelosi).

Also: in the event the Speaker is actually elevated to the Presidency under the terms of the Presidential Succession Act, it's for a *full four year term*.

The only way this can be changed is by an act of Congress (which has precisely zero chance of happening).

So, that's where the law stands. If Trump cancels the election, he absolutely will not remain in office legally beyond 1/20/21.


MDN

[grantcart]

3. If there are no elections there are no House members and no Speaker

That would go to the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

As there are more Republicans up for election than Democrats the Democrats would become the majority party.

By tradition the Pres Pro Tem is the longest serving member of the majority party but that is only because it is a ceremonial post.

Presumably if it were for actual succession a competitive race would ensue among Democratic Senators for the position

[Mike Niendorff]

6. Incorrect.

I actually had a PM conversation on this a couple of days ago with someone who has a better handle on the legal side of this than I do (because I had the same mis-reading initially).

Here's the upshot:

The office of "Speaker of the House" is separate and distinct from the office of "U.S. Representative".

The Speaker historically has been chosen from among the Representatives in the House, but that is *not* a Constitutional requirement. The House has the authority to select whoever they choose for that role, whether a Representative or not.

Let me say that again, because it's important: the position of Speaker is separate from the position of U.S. Representative, and is not dependent on one's current status as a Representative.

The term of the Speaker begins and ends with the swearing in of the succeeding Speaker. This is different from the terms of U.S. Representatives, which begin and end on Jan 3rd following an election year.

So as crazy as this may sound (and, again, I had to double-check it myself) even though House terms end on 1/3/21, the term of the Speaker -- which is separate from Ms. Pelosi's role as a Representative -- does not end until a new Speaker is actually sworn in.

And if the election is cancelled, then there can be no succeeding Speaker yet, because there would be no incoming House members to decide who that would be.

And yes, believe it or not that's actually how it works.

My friend described it as a "continuity mechanism", which I think sums it up well. Someone always remains in office to pass the torch.


MDN

[grantcart]

8. So your friend thinks that, wow. Now if you can only get him published

There is nothing in Article One that supports the premise that the Speaker is an elected office that is separate from the House of Representatives, there is no support in the text that alludes to anything close to a "continuity mechanism". The text is quite explicit: The House of Representatives chooses the Speaker. Logically it follows that if there is no sitting House of Representatives then it is impossible for an institution which has not been legally constituted to make a choice:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Speaker isn't a separate office that exists independently of the House but only exists when there is a House.

If there is no election all of the Representatives offices are vacated and there is no House of Representatives. If there is no House of Representative there cannot be a Speaker. While it is correct that the Speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress there is nothing in the text of the constitution that suggests that the office continues independently of the House of Representatives. If there is no HOR then the Speaker cannot have been chosen to represent it.

Your premise is that a body that has no members can choose its leader or that the Leader of the previous House of Representatives continues simply because there is nothing that limits the term of the Speaker.

Its interesting that you DOUBLE checked it because I had DOUBLE checked it before posting and I couldn't find a single written article that supports the premise that if there were no election then the Speaker of the House (which would have no members) would retain her position when no members were sworn into office.

There have been numerous articles published that support the President Pro Tem would be the only elected official in the line of succession still in office if no election was held.

Here are some examples:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1256779/trump-news-nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-19-mike-pence-us-president-spt

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2020/03/23/if-coronavirus-delays-eleciton-vermont-senator-leahy-could-become-president/2897152001/

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/what-if-trump-tried-to-cancel-the-november-election.html


The argument that many people have made in written pieces that are actually published and not told "by a friend" are summarized by this example:

If, of course, there’s no general election in November, Trump and Pence aren’t the only elected officials out of a job, so crazy things could happen. While the Speaker of the House is third in the line of presidential succession, Nancy Pelosi is also up for reelection this year and so would face the same scenario as Trump and Pence if the election were to be canceled. The next in the line of succession who does not face voters in November is Chuck Grassley, the Senate’s president pro tempore. But then again, 23 Republican senators are up for reelection this year and would be on the sidelines as well, so we could have a Democratic Senate and perhaps a president pro tempore Pat Leahy (that position traditionally goes to the oldest senator of the majority party).

Most of the people who make this argument make the error that Leahy would automatically become President Pro Tem but the article by the NY Magazine quoted is correct that the office is only given to the longest serving member as a traditional honor, if it were to fill the Presidency I assume that there would be a President Pro Tem election that is not based on just tradition.

Obviously these are not Supreme Court rulings, and that is where it would be argued, but they are researched, passed fact checking at established media and having been committed to their position in writing open to scholars and experts to publish articles that would pose a contrary position, apparently no scholar has stood up to challenge the basic premise.

In fact there are no written pieces I can find that support your friend's position that the Speaker's office would exist in an institution that has no members to choose it.

The only article that comes close to your position is this one (who knew that Dan Abrams had a website committed to legal issues?)

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/calm-down-folks-donald-trump-cant-legally-use-the-coronavirus-to-move-2020-election-day-stay-in-office/

But they aren't really making an argument that the Speaker's office would exist if the House of Representatives were constituted they are simply saying that if there were no elections and the office of President and Vice President would follow the normal rules of succession.

All of which makes for an interesting parlor game but all of the experts agree that the President cannot "cancel" the elections. Only Congress can determine the date or delay when the elections could be held.

[Mike Niendorff]

13. "published"?

Not to be a jerk, but the highly reputable legal journals you are citing are ...

* The Daily Express (UK)
* The Burlington Free Press
* NY Magazine

All three are opinion pieces.

None of them have any legal significance or weight.

The cornerstone of your argument is this:

"The Speaker isn't a separate office that exists independently of the House but only exists when there is a House."
(Those are your words, btw, not a citation of legal authority. But I digress.)

The key responsive point I'd like to make is this:

The House does not cease to exist, then pop back into existence, then cease to exist, then pop back into existence, over and over with each new election. Nor does the Presidency. Nor any other body of our government.

Your foundational characterization here is false.

My second responsive point is this:

You state: "There is nothing in Article One that supports the premise that the Speaker is an elected office that is separate from the House of Representatives"

But this is misleading. The Speaker is not an elected office at all. It is an office internal to the House of Representatives, chosen by its members at appointed intervals and subject to the Rules of the House. The Constitution does not specify a manner of selection or a term or anything much else about this office. The conclusory assertion that "the Constitution says nothing therefore my position must be declared right by default" is simply not how the law works. It literally doesn't even qualify as an argument.

Thirdly (for completeness): the 20th Amendment does not affect the term of the Speaker:

The 20th Amendment delineates the terms of the President, Vice President and members of Congress. It says absolutely nothing about internal officers of the institution.

Lastly (again, for completeness), the Presidential Succession Act does not affect the term of the Speaker:

It literally does not even address it.

So, we are left with the following:

Based on your thorough review of opinion pieces in a newspaper, a magazine and a UK daily, you have determined that there is no legal support for my position that (1) the House of Representatives indeed does continue to exist as an institution even between Congresses, (2) the Constitution does not specify how the officers of that institution are to be chosen nor how their terms are to be delineated -- that is a matter internal to the institution (which, again, does continue to exist), and (3) the only term limit existing in law on the position of Speaker is the swearing in of the succeeding Speaker.

Really, what is there left of your argument to respond to?

Oh yeah: I mentioned a discussion with a person in the legal field -- "a friend" -- and you are kind enough to turn that into a nice derogatory air-quote term, as though that somehow elevates your 3 online opinion pieces into something of merit. Nice try.

For the record, that friend is a practicing attorney in a major jurisdiction whose education, experience and judgment I respect. I have passed him a link to this thread if he would like to participate, but beyond that it's certainly not for me to put any of his personal information here. So I'll have to stick with "a friend". And it's good to have friends whose insights and judgment are reliable.

As for me personally, it's been 23 years since I left law school, so I admit I'm a bit rusty, but not so rusty that I'm going to accept your response here as being a compelling counter-argument. It boils down to a couple of conclusory assertions wrapped in 3 opinion pieces that you found online. One of which isn't even from a US paper.

In short: you typed a lot of words, but in the end it's just a lot of sound and fury. I'm sure you can finish the sentiment from there.


MDN

[grantcart]

14. Putting in a disclaimer about not being a jerk doesn't in fact proscribe acting a bit like one

I find your characterization "the highly reputable legal journals" to be obtuse.

At no point did I refer to them as highly reputable or as legal journals and the fact that you would make that aspersion a reflection on how intellectually dishonest your post has been.

Not only did I not refer to them as "legal journals" in the fairness of having an honest discussion of the subject I cited the only article I could find that was from a legal discussion board that seem to back the premise that Pelosi would be the next in succession but a close look shows that they were only treating the question superficially and didn't address the question of the Speaker of the House.

There are not going to be any serious articles in legal journals on the subject because the premise of the discussion is false. The President has no authority to postpone the election only Congress does. Even in a nightmare situation that some locations could not conduct polls because of a pandemic there are states like Washington and Oregon that already do all their polling by mail so there will be some number of Representatives elected. Even if a state were to cancel in person polling all of those states will have paper ballots mailed in. So the premise that the election will not occur does not take place is not one that is based on any really serious scenario.

It then falls into the parlance of a "parlor game" discussion.

Citing published opinion pieces show that others who have looked at it seriously have ventured opinions, got them past fact checking, past editorial review and here is the key point:

put it out into the community so that others can challenge it and advance the discussion

The point is not that it was ever a part of serious judicial legal review, and your characterization that I offered it as such when clearly I did not, is rude and intellectually dishonest.

The fact is that following a thorough search I could not find a single opinion writer that supports your or your friend's assertion.

Two additional points:

1) This is a discussion board. If you have an opinion then you should research it and present it and not try to validate it to a "friend" or "something I heard" etc.

My brother is a retired judge and we talked about it and he just laughed at your suggestion but I don't think his opinion is particularly authoritative because he is more of an authority on misdemeanors and spousal abuse cases and hasn't looked at the constitution in a serious way in 4 decades.

If you think a point is valid then present it as your opinion and don't make a ridiculous reference to an authority who isn't stating their opinion directly here and can't be challenged on what they think.

2) Your argument that the House of Representatives will continue to exist because it is written about in the constitution is rather childish and all of your arguments are based on that.

While it is true that the theoretical structure of the House of Representatives would continue in the constitution the constitutional authority that would constitute the House would not be activated. The House doesn't exist in the abstract. It is brought into session for a two year term.

The language is quite specific. There hasn't been one Congress that has been in continuous establishment since the constitution was implemented there have been 116 Congresses. Each one has a beginning date and an ending date:

This Congress is not referred to as the Congress meeting for the 116th session, it is literally referred to as the 116th Congress

The One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It convened in Washington, D.C., on January 3, 2019, and will end on January 3, 2021,

All of the offices established by the 116th Congress will end on Jan 3, 2022. That includes the chairmen of the committee, the speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leaders as well.

In fact the Senate which has 3 classes must also re elect their officers and their standing rules every two years at the beginning of the new session.

That the Office of the Speaker of the House is elected for a specific term of time is in fact well documented, so you can tell your friend:

Here are a few sources:

https://www.ushistory.org/gov/6b.asp

At the beginning of each new Congress, the members of each party gather in special meetings to talk party policy and themes and to select their leaders by majority vote. Democrats call their meeting a "CAUCUS," and the Republicans call theirs a "CONFERENCE." Next, when each house convenes in its first session, Congressional leaders, such as the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE and the MAJORITY LEADER in the Senate, are selected.

https://www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/what-is-the-role-of-the-speaker-of-the-house/

The U.S. Constitution authorizes the House to choose their Speaker, who is selected by roll call vote on the first day of every new Congress. Customarily, each party (Democrat and Republican) nominates a candidate and members normally vote for the candidate of their party. Roll call votes are repeated until a candidate receives an absolute majority of all votes cast. The Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of Congress, although all Speakers have been members.

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Speaker_of_the_House

When a Congress convenes for the first time, each major party conference or caucus nominates a candidate for Speaker.

Members customarily elect the Speaker by roll call vote. A member usually votes for the candidate from his or her own party conference or caucus but can vote for anyone, whether that person has been nominated or not.[2]

To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast—which may be less than a majority of the full House because of vacancies, absentee members, or members who vote "present." If no candidate receives the majority of votes, the roll call is repeated until a majority is reached and the Speaker is elected.[2]

The first day of a new Congress is a truly exciting day for the House, and especially its newly elected Members. One of the most momentous parts of the first day is the constitutional obligation of electing a Speaker, who will preside over the House for the next two years.

So to sum up:

The constitution does not establish a continuous House of Representatives but establishes a Congress that has a specific start and end date.

There have been 116 Congresses since the constitution was established

The 116th Congress terminates on January 3rd 2021.

The 117th Congress has a term that that starts on January 3rd 2021 and ends on January 3rd 2023.

In order to constitute the 117th Congress elected representatives will have to present their certification of election from their state's Secretary of State. They would have to take the oath of office and then they can vote on the offices for the 117th Congress.

Speaker Pelosi is the Speaker for the 116th Congress and that ends on January 3rd 2021. Being Speaker of the 116th Congress does not automatically mean that you are speaker of the 117th Congress. A new Congress has to be constituted and sworn into office.

Apparently you spend some time at law school. I had only one undergraduate class on the Constitution and did not study law at graduate school. I would say that I got a better return on my tuition dollar.

[Mike Niendorff]

15. Ok, I'm not being patient with you anymore.

I have been extremely polite with you considering your rude and disparaging responses.

You are making an abundance of declaratory statements, but what you are not doing is citing any actual Constitutional authority.

You are citing internet opinion pieces, internet wikis, anything but actual authority.

You are citing rules for selecting succeeding Speakers -- notably, this is not the issue under discussion.

We are discussing exactly one thing:

When does one Speaker's term end, and the succeeding Speaker's term begin?

That's it.

Not "how is the succeeding Speaker selected".

Not "what is the term of a Representative".

Not "how many internet opinions could I find that tangentially touched on my personal opinion".

Not "how likely is this to really happen anyway".

We're talking about actual Constitutional authority, and actual Constitutional structure, in reference to exactly one specific question.

I've shown you my position.

You responded with internet opinion pieces and SERIOUS personal attacks.

Enough.

I am extremely disappointed in the level of discourse I'm seeing from you.

Have a nice day.


MDN

[The Magistrate]

16. However, Sir, You Have Not Established

Your claim that the person selected as Speaker for a specific session of the House remains Speaker once that session of the House ends.

Nor have you really offered much to support it.

That the House is an institution of our government hardly indicates it continues to function if there are no members to sit. Which there would not be, were no election for House seats held. Terms of House members end on the specified date, and should anyone from the previous House session arrive, the guards would be obliged to treat them as so many tourists.

The point you press amounts saying that that the person elected as Speaker of the House for a specific session of the House is elected as the Speaker of the continuous institution of the House, rather than as the Speaker of a specific ession, or term, of the House. If that is the case, then a Speaker holds the office until a new speaker is elected. This is the first order of business when a newly elected House is sworn in.

That when the new House meets, it is the Clerk of the House who presides over its first business, the election of a new Speaker, suggests this view is in error. If the office persisted after the dissolving of the current House, and the office was retained until a new Speaker were elected, then surely the person who, by your claim, still would be Speaker of the House, would continue as presiding officer, as she or he is directed to do while Speaker. Since your claim seems to be rooted in your reading of a text which does not specify any fixed term for the office of Speaker, from which you deduce that the Speaker continues in office till a new Speaker is selected, the fact that it is not the 'current Speaker' (by your claim) who presides over selection of a new Speaker, but the Clerk who presides over the new House until it elects its Speaker for that session, tells heavily against your view. Your view is at odds with the actual practice, by which when a new session of the House meets, there is no Speaker, and someone else presides over the body. Should the matter come to court (and the Supreme Court is a continuing body), my expectation would be that your view would be ruled against, and ruled against decisively, because it flies in the face of existing practice, and nothing stated positively in the Constitution supports it.

It is a nice fantasy, and Heaven knows I would like to see Madame Speaker in the Oval Office, clothed in the powers and prerogatives of the Presidency, but it is not going to happen by this route.

[Mike Niendorff]

20. Thank you for the well thought out and respectful response -- it is welcome in this thread.

Your points are all well-taken, except that again, we're falling back on things that aren't actually definitive -- we're talking the implication of something rather than an actual Constitutional mandate, law or House Rule to that effect.

And I have to question even that implication, honestly, because the alternative would be for a Speaker to be presiding over his or her own election within the body -- which would stand to determine whether that same Speaker remains in office. This would be a major conflict of interest, much like having the Vice President preside over an impeachment trial that could potentially elevate him or her to the Presidency.

I think there is a lot of room for discussion there, and the implication is not nearly as clear-cut as you believe.

But I can very much respect the response on the merits here.

There's a good discussion at the following link that I think really gets us a step back from this and looks at how this would play out under multiple scenarios, regardless of where people come down on this particular question. It's a good read.

https://mobile.twitter.com/carltonfwlarson/status/1238506586156351488

I appreciate you taking the time to jump in and elevate the discourse.


MDN

[The Magistrate]

22. This Will Be My Last Comment On The Subject, Sir

There is only deduction from the absence of a specific statement in the Constitution detailing when a Speaker's term ends to support the contention that the person who holds that office continues in it after the session of the House she or he is Speaker of ceases. That is not enough to support the claim against the established practice. To do so amounts to saying that for a couple of centuries, for many decades at least, the people performing the acts and rituals of government have got it wrong, and someone on facebook or twitter, or somebody's friend, has seen something all these people charged with the business of governance have overlooked all these years. This is on a par with sovereign citizens claiming some obscure statement in the middle part of the nineteenth century actually means Federal law applies only on properties owned by the Federal government or in the capital district, so that Federal law enforcement has no authority anywhere else, and can be ordered out of a county by its sheriff.

The procedure is clear. When a new Congress convenes, the Clerk of the House calls the members to order, presides while the rules of the new House are presented and passed, and then presides over the election of the Speaker for this session of the House. Once a Speaker is elected, the Clerk turns over the gavel to the newly elected Speaker for this session of the House, who begins to preside over the House, as directed by the Constitution. The next order of business is electing officials of the new session of the House, including a Clerk for the new session.

Since the Constitution directs that the Speaker presides over the House, if the person elected Speaker for a previous session of the House continued to hold office as 'Speaker of the House' after the previous session of the House was concluded, the direct Constitutional mandate that the Speaker presides would take precedence over any mere rule or procedure of the House. It would be the person who was Speaker for the previous session who would preside, who would call the new session to order, preside over adoption of rules and the election of a Speaker for the current House session. This does not occur. It does not occur because when a session of the House ends, so do its offices, save for that of the Clerk, and perhaps a few others which are not held by elected representatives, but by functionaries who have no role in the business of legislation. When a session of the House ends, when the terms of its elected members concludes, there is no Speaker of the House, because there is no House until the first session of the newly elected House is called to order by the Clerk, and the new House has no Speaker until one is elected, while the Clerk acts as presiding officer until that business is concluded.

One possible source of the misapprehension that a Speaker remains Speaker till a new Speaker is selected may be the form by which resignation of a Speaker during a session of the House takes place. Such resignations are tendered with the proviso that the resignation takes effect on the election of a new Speaker. Thus, for example, Mr. Boehner remained Speaker and presided over the election of Paul Ryan, ceasing to hold the office only when Mr. Ryan had been elected. But this procedure for handing over the gavel during a session of the House says nothing about the selection of a Speaker once a new House is called to session by its initial presiding office, the Clerk. It is immaterial to the business of selecting the Speaker for the new House. Just as it is immaterial that the person elected as Speaker for a new session of the House is often the same person who was Speaker of the previous session. That person is not the Speaker of the new House until selected as such by the newly seated Representatives, with the Clerk presiding. The office is vacant from the end of a session of the House, and remains vacant until the newly seated House elects itself a Speaker.

[Massacure]

10. So Pelosi could ask the the House could elect Joe Biden as speaker?

I'm assuming Bernie is ineligible as long as he is a Senator, but if Trump tried to postpone the election the House could theoretically elect Joe Biden as it's Speaker prior to January 3 as a massive "Fuck you" to trump? I love it!

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Nicely done.

Well put.

I've said this before, and in spite of various claims that he won't leave if he loses or whatever, the fact is, if he has lost the election and it has been certified by the Senate, at noon on January 20'th, 2021 he will no longer be president. He can stomp his feet all he wants, but if he utterly refuses to leave the White House on that day, the second the new president says the words "So Help Me God", the Secret Service will pick him up bodily and place him on Pennsylvania Avenue somewhere between the corners of Jackson and Madison NW and immediately revoke his access to the grounds.

I just don't see them fucking around in this regard. He won't be the President, so he wont be Commander in Chief and he will have absolutely zero authority to do fucking diddly. The mere fact that the outgoing president is flown home on AF1 is merely a courtesy, and is in no way a requirement.

I have a feeling that the SDNY is going to have some fine folks with handcuffs waiting for him if he flies home to NY, and if he goes to Florida, they'll probably have some US Marshalls to meet him in WPB.

Someone put up a thread the other day about how he won't be arrested after he leaves office. I don't agree at all.

He needs to be made an example of. We can't fuck around and allow this sort of bullshit to go on in this country. There just simply has to be criminal charges filed against a man who is so clearly a criminal guilty of criminal acts. Him and rest of his fucking gangster family.

[Kaleva]

5. How could Trump, hypothetically, cancel the election?

People who talk about the possibility that Trump might cancel the election cannot point out the law or laws which give a president the authority to do so. The reason for that it that they don't exist.

[beachbumbob]

7. this is the CORRECT answer.

[Mike Niendorff]

21. Agreed.

But the fact that we're even having this discussion shows that a lot of people wouldn't put it past him to try. That says something.


MDN

[crickets]

9. K&R for the post and the discussion.

[Sugarcoated]

11. A friend's speculation:

What do you all think?

"If there is no election then the Speaker of House would be sworn in as president. But if there is an incomplete election without sufficient electoral votes for either candidate then the election would go to the House of Representatives, where each State gets only one vote. There are more majority red than blue State House delegations so Trump stays. Another horrible failure of federalism.

My fb friend is speculating this is why Trump is fighting mail in voting.

[Sugarcoated]

12. Is anyone familiar with this type of scenario?

Could this be what the domestic terrorist is up to?

[The Magistrate]

17. So Far, Ma'am

An election result in which no candidate received a majority of electoral votes, and so went to the House, has only stemmed from several candidates with substantial support being in the field. The 1824 contest featured this, and the House voted in John Quincy Adams.

There has never been an 'incomplete' election of the sort you postulate, in which some states return no election result. In 1864, the states of the Confederacy were not part of the United States, and so the returns of all states remaining in the Union were complete returns for the election. The vote of several newly minted Loyalist governments established in states which had seceeded but now were at least largely occupied by Federal troops were rejected as invalid, but that is not quite the same as not every state returning an electon result, as the question turned on whether these bodies represented states which actually were back in the Union.

Most commentary I have seen indicates belief that an absolute majority of electors is required for the elevation of a candidate to the Presidency --- that is, a majority of all possible electors, rather than a majority of sitting electors.

The relevant text of the 12th amendment is this:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."

So the question would turn on the meaning of 'the whole number of Electors appointed'. If this were held to mean that electors from states which held elections, and so had selected Electors to cast Presidential ballots, constituted 'the whole number of Electors appointed', then a majority of these would constitute a majority of electoral votes cast. If it were held that Electors were appointed by the specification of their number in every state, but that these appointments were simply not filled by states which held no elections, then the majority required would be half of all possible electors, the familiar 270 figure. It is an interesting question, and not one I would trust the present Supreme Court to rule on honestly in a contest between Mr. Biden and this cheap thug Trump....

[sarisataka]

18. Try this, it will be more accurate than Facebook experts

Or internet lawyers

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

[The Magistrate]

19. Quite True, Sir