this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
247 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2557 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The head of the House Democratic Caucus warned Tuesday that voters should have no faith in Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to certify this year’s presidential election results because of his role in promoting former President Trump’s false claims about the 2020 contest being “rigged.” 

He doesn’t have a track record that would indicate to the American people that he should be believed,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

The charge came shortly after Johnson, appearing at the same pressroom podium, had vowed to back the certification of the winner of this year’s contest between Trump and Vice President Harris — if the elections are “free, fair and safe.”

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So... When pre modern societies had an enemy within that was openly trying to destroy their way of life, they'd just kill that person or render them as outlaws (literally not protected by the law).

Instead we're just watching them lie, and allowing them to retain their position, privileges, and safety until... When exactly? What's the civilized solution when we're subject to the rulership of men who are protected by our laws but not bound by them? Everyone knows "free, fair, and safe" is code for "if my guy wins", because it's the same exact way Trump talks about repeating his insurrection any time you ask if he'll accept the results. The lies are clear and the wheels of justice aren't fast enough to stop them. What's the civilized solution?

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Prioritized trials for elected officials. They take prominence over all other trials and should have strict time frames.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

exists for a reason.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 1 month ago

2 failed attempts so far

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IIRC the Speaker has no role in certification. It's the sitting VP who does that.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/roles

House and Senate staff meet with OFR staff to inspect the Certificates of Vote in late December. If any State’s Certificate fails to reach the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate calls on OFR to deliver duplicate originals in its possession to complete the set held by Congress.

Congress meets in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6 to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer, whose powers are limited by Federal statute to performing ministerial duties. The President of the Senate opens the votes of the States in alphabetical order, and hands them to the appointed Tellers, who announce the results out loud. The President of the Senate then calls for any objections.

To be recognized, an objection must:

be submitted in writing

be signed by at least one-fifth of the House and one-fifth of the Senate

state clearly and concisely, without argument, one of two acceptable grounds for objection; that:

a. the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or

b. the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.

If an objection is recognized, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections, following the process set out in 3 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 17. After all the votes are recorded and counted, the President of the Senate declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the concern is that Johnson is one step away from the VP so if either Biden or Harris aren't as lucky as donald has been recently then he would be the one responsible for certifying.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's only a line of succession if the top spot is gone.

If Biden is gone then Harris becomes president, but the VP spot remains open.

If Harris is gone then the VP spot remains open.

A new VP is then filled by someone nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. (It's possible things could freeze here, but not by Johnson.)

AFAIK there is nothing that would make Johnson the acting VP.

Only if Biden & Harris die in a short window, moving him to President, would he be a problem.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A new VP is then filled by someone nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. (It's possible things could freeze here, but not by Johnson.)

The 25th Amendment says that a VP replacement has to be confirmed by both Houses of Congress. Johnson could absolutely fuck shit up there.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah my bad.

I did a little digging and it looks like the certification process is actually handled by the President of the Senate, not the Vice President. It just so happens that the President of the Senate is also the Vice President. However the President pro tempore acts as the President of the Senate if the Vice President is unavailable.

So if we had no Vice President, we would still have a President of the Senate, so things would continue as normal.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Which, considering the VP is currently a candidate, it might be the Pro Tempore stepping in.

To avoid conflicts of interest in what is supposed to be an entirely ceremonial role….

[–] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No it's like the nemesis system in the Lord of the rings games and everyone moves up one slot! /S

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sadly they still have a patent on that, so Democracy will have to wait.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It doesn't work that way.

If Biden is out, Harris becomes President, picks her own VP who would do the certification.

If Harris is out, well that would be a nightmare because of the election, but Biden would replace her and that VP would do the certification.

If Biden AND Harris are both lost in some kind of catastrophe, Johnson becomes President and still doesn't certify the election because whoever he picks for VP would do that.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's not that neat.

According to the 25th Amendment, if there is a vacancy in the VP slot, a candidate is nominated by the President but must be confirmed by both Houses of Congress.

You can immediately see why that would be a problem if the GOP has control of either House.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh? I thought the whole cabinet shuffled by one. TIL.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Shuffles by one if it has to, but anyone with a boss can just be replaced because that higher authority exists.

Usually this is discussed with just the president, who has no higher authority, or in the case of mass death like nuclear war, with an assumption that we lose a good chunk of the government. But not this conversation, where VP matters more than P for certification.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

So what can be done.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

How is that a problem? Far as I know, that's a joint session with the sitting VP in charge. The speaker doesn't play that much of a role.