Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection

No requirement to use the whole 2 hours

Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on https://t.co/KpZl17yjLv
Correct https://t.co/qHu8Y1yUhm
The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks https://t.co/Uv7O3VySAK
I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte https://t.co/w5oCKVd4Ls
A majority of those present and voting https://t.co/f9Ts2MBYFL
Depends on chambers

In the past 20ish years, everything has been done in under an hour. That included verbal objections in 2001 and 2017, and written objections in 2005 https://t.co/VdznPJuVY9
They have the power to object to individual electors, as happened with NC's faithless elector for George Wallace in 1969's count

But if there isn't an individualized reason – just that they're each "illegitimate" – then individual objections would be dilatory / out of order https://t.co/0Mqcs1qmhx
Pence presides over the joint session, 3 USC §18

He's got a flight to catch though so won't let this drag on, or he'll hand it over to Grassley https://t.co/j3Edvj6Azn
Ah. In which case I suppose he's only bounded by his boredom

His statement today pretty clearly says he's not going to do anything outlandish https://t.co/T1YY369dpj

More from T. Greg Doucette

No


No

https://t.co/9MgwobVvYS


Incitement is speech that is:

1️⃣ intended to cause, and
2️⃣ reasonably likely to cause
3️⃣ imminent
4️⃣ lawless action

It needs all 4 elements

If any of those 4 are missing, it's First-Amendment protected speech

And constitutionally protected speech is never sedition

No


Immediate is imminent
4 minutes from now is imminent
4 hours from now might be imminent but probably is not
4 days from now definitely is not
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO

I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election


Very low

I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago

The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago


No

People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just


Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per


Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue

Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber


Sort of

You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends

1/


Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona

When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first

2/
@philski68

And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue

So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely

3/3
@philski68

Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025

But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876


Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?

It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results


The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42

If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it

But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes

Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere


Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not

More from For later read

Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).

Inside: Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs; Strength in numbers; and more!

Archived at: https://t.co/esjoT3u5Gr

#Pluralistic

1/


On Feb 22, I'm delivering a keynote address for the NISO Plus conference, "The day of the comet: what trustbusting means for digital manipulation."

https://t.co/Z84xicXhGg

2/


Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs: Ink-stained wretches of the world, unite!

https://t.co/k5ASdVUrC2

3/


Strength in numbers: The crisis in accounting.

https://t.co/DjfAfHWpNN

4/


#15yrsago Bad Samaritan family won’t return found expensive camera https://t.co/Rn9E5R1gtV

#10yrsago What does Libyan revolution mean for https://t.co/Jz28qHVhrV? https://t.co/dN1e4MxU4r

5/
The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1

And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.

Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2


When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.

The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3

In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it


Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.

The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
I’ve been frustrated by the tweets I’ve seen of this as a Canadian. Because the facts are being misrepresented.

We’re not under some sort of major persecution. That’s not what this is. A thread. 1/8


This church was fined for breaking health orders in Dec. They continued to break them. So the pastor was arrested and released on conditions of... you guessed it, not breaking health orders. And then they broke the health orders. 2/8

So then he was arrested and told he couldn’t hold church services in person if he was to be released. He refused. He’s still in custody.

Here is my frustration as a Christian in Canada:

1. They were able to gather, with some conditions. They didn’t like those. 3/8

2. He is not actually unable to preach. He is just unable to hold church services because they broke the conditions given by the public health office in Alberta. He says he can’t in good conscience do that, so they are keeping him in jail (because he will break the law). 4/8

3. This is the 1st article of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” 5/8

You May Also Like