Loyola law professor Edward Foley may have unwittingly laid out in 2019 the scenario for retaining power that the #Trump @WhiteHouse and #GOP are now following. In this law journal scenario, Jan 4-20 actions are critical, leading to the Supreme Court.
lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewconten…
lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewconten…
If you substitute "Georgia" for every reference to "Pennsylvania" you see the #Trump power playbook. Pg 325: the “President of the Senate” [Pence] has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” & thus which electoral votes “to be counted.”
Foley conts:
"what if the Senate and House disagree? ...the Pelosi-led House votes to accept the electoral votes, while the McConnell-led Senate votes to accept the electoral
votes for Trump? Here is where the statutory morass of 3 U.S.C. § 15 becomes an interpretative quagmire"
"what if the Senate and House disagree? ...the Pelosi-led House votes to accept the electoral votes, while the McConnell-led Senate votes to accept the electoral
votes for Trump? Here is where the statutory morass of 3 U.S.C. § 15 becomes an interpretative quagmire"
pg 331
"the Electoral Count Act in 1887, its opaque and
contorted text is susceptible to two different understandings of what is supposed to happen in this inherently fraught situation—a circumstance for which statutory clarity, rather than ambiguity, is acutely required."
"the Electoral Count Act in 1887, its opaque and
contorted text is susceptible to two different understandings of what is supposed to happen in this inherently fraught situation—a circumstance for which statutory clarity, rather than ambiguity, is acutely required."
It all comes to a head in 2 days with Electoral College vote in the Senate. #GOP plans to contest, so: "...is it necessary for the military to make its own independent judgment of the correct interpretation of 3 U.S.C. § 15?" (pg 341) 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
