LIVE -- Jan 6 Committee Hearing on the Trainwreck, Day 3
Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2022, 04:37 PM - Edit history (2)
START 16:10
= new reply since forum marked as read
Judge Luttig: Alternate electors did not have any constitutional or legal support, nor did VP Pence; only the states confirmation of electors at that point. Eastman was wrong to state there was "historical precedent" for such a plan; more importantly any legal precedent for counting any electors but what were sent to Congress.
Judge Luttig analysis on "incorrect at every turn":
I could answer if I had my analytical tweet of Sept. 21...there was no basis in the laws or constitution of the United States for the claims of Mr. Eastman at all, and the single sentence of the 12th Amendment was crystal clear and not "inartfully written." He had no constitutional authority to make such a claim... that 12th amendment says that not even that the VP himself shall count the electoral votes, it clearly says merely that the electoral count vote shall then be counted. The Electoral Count Act defines the sacred process of the electoral counting... the irony is that from its founding until 1887 when Congress passed the Electoral Count Act the nation had been in considerable turmoil in at least 5 of its 7 elections,... so ... that's why in my view, that piece of legislation is not only a work in progress for the country, but at this moment in history an important work in progress...the language of the 12th Amendment is that simple.
Pence's Counsel, Jacob: There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the text of the 12th Amendment. But we've seen 2000, 2004 that electoral count was rejected... there is no constitutional text that allows any sending back of electoral counts to states, or that the VP has ever in 200 years had the authority to choose the president.
