Based on the non stop screams of “insurrection”, the 1887 Electoral Count Act has been brought up again. An opinion piece on The Hill was written by Evan Davis and David Schulte. Both were editors in chief of Columbia Law Review and the Yale Law Journal respectively. The two wanted Congress to do this even though a version of this was unsuccessfully tried in a couple states. Trump won overwhelmingly.
Democrats want their gravy train
Trump will take that away. The argument was again brought up that Trump tried to overthrow the federal government with an unarmed insurrection and that this disqualifies him from the Presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Sound familiar? That’s because again this was already tried. A number of states tried and failed to remove Trump from their ballots.
Trump won
Democrats can’t even argue that Kamala Harris was more popular. He won that too. But that doesn’t matter. Davis and Schulte still want Congress to keep the President-elect out of office.
The Congressional Research Service had put a report together Dec. 8, 2020 about the Electoral Count Act. There are two reasons for formal objections to the electoral vote.
Voter not certified or “regularly given”
The report started, “The general grounds for an objection to the counting of an electoral vote or votes would appear from the federal statute and from historical sources to be that such vote was not ‘regularly given’ by an elector, and/or that the elector was not ‘lawfully certified’ according to state statutory procedures.”
Davis and Schulte’s whole argument rests on the “regularly given”. “A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is plainly in accordance with the normal use of words ‘not regularly given.” The calculation was made that if 20% of Congress signed a petition objecting to the Trump votes it could disqualify him. But will you be able to convince 87 House members and 20 Senators to do this? Not likely.
