American Democracy at Risk? Reps Will Decide

On the votes that will be cast in November, democracy will be included in its broadest definition. A candidate who aggressively attempted to change the results of the 2020 election and who continues to deny the legitimacy of those results is unlikely to win the Republican candidacy.

It is difficult to envision that this candidate will eventually win the nomination. However, we continue to live with it. The individual in question is not only the undisputed favorite to become the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, but he is also the current leader in the competitive campaign.

The fact that former President Donald Trump is in this position is evidence that a significant portion of the American voter population does not seem to be concerned about the future of our democratic system. His significant support for authoritarian countries and his statements simply help to strengthen that support, which is an even more troubling aspect of his behavior.

It has been pointed out by President Biden, who is accurate, that the most important issue at stake in this election is the protection of Democracy. He is correct in every way. On the other hand, the anti-democratic inclinations that Trump exhibits are only the top of the mountain. Trump can’t overturn the verdict of the people or even bring the campaign to an end under his power. He must have a full supporting cast to pull things off.

It is important to keep in mind that Trump is supported by a large group of individuals who refuse to respect the results of the 2020 election or admit that Biden is a legitimately elected president. Compared to the election in 2020, the 2024 election is much more dangerous because the Republican speaker of the house, Representative Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), is not only a person who denies the results of the election but also a strong advocate for the overturning of the results.

Although the majority of his caucus is in agreement with him, he has never retracted his claim that the most recent presidential election was defrauded. When Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House of Representatives in the year 2020, the Democratic Party was in control of the chamber.

The potential of ensuring a victory for Trump (regardless of the result of the vote) is contingent on the party that has control of the House of Representatives between Election Day 2024 and the date when the new Congress begins office on January 3, 2025. This is even though it is not yet clear which party will have the majority in the House of Representatives.

In a post that was published in the Washington Spectator, two seasoned politicians named Mark Medish and Joel McCleary have written an important essay that warns of an upcoming catastrophe that will be produced by a House of Representatives that is determined to disrespect the integrity of the voting process.

“Dancing in the Dark: Steps to Avoid a Constitutional Coup in the 2024 election,” which is the title of the paper that Medish and McCleary have written, demonstrates that they are true champions of our democratic process. They investigate in great detail the mechanisms that would allow a Republican speaker to fraudulently reverse a presidential election, in addition to other conceivable illegitimate methods that election results may be thrown out of court.

Medish and McCleary have said that it is no longer prudent to believe that someone is acting in good faith. The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, conducted a political action in which he rallied the minority of 138 Republicans to refuse to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. This occurred even though states certified the results of the vote and virtually all state and federal courts determined that the election was honest.

As a consequence of the Republicans’ control of the House of Representatives and Johnson’s leadership, the capacity to influence the outcome of an election has considerably risen. one of the most dangerous instances is presented by Medish and McCleary. The Republicans and the Democrats in the House of Representatives are separated by no more than a handful of votes.

The redistricting choices that have been made in several states have significantly improved the possibilities of the Democrats regaining the majority in the House of Representatives in November. But the Republican majority that opposes the results of elections may decide in the days after the elections in November that they would challenge the validity of certain House races that Democrats won by razor-thin margins.

This would be a decision that would be issued in the days following the elections. The Republicans in the current 118th Congress may choose to refuse to recognize a sufficient number of Democratic election winners before the next session starts on January 3. This would allow them to keep their majority in the 119th Congress, which would be the 119th Congress. To ensure that the newly elected members of Congress can immediately begin their work when they take office, it is traditional for the Congress that is leaving to provide certification of the elections of House members.

Even though the results of the election show a different victor, Medish and McCleary point out that there have been occasions in which a majority party in the House has employed severe political techniques to install a member of their party in a controversial election. In a nutshell, an illegal House can continue existing for an infinite amount of time.

After the Republicans had “stolen” the majority and speakership of the House of Representatives, the next step in their plan to reject the election would be to refuse to certify the results of the Electoral College for select states on January 6. This could be done with or without the assistance of a governor from a state that is considered to be conservative or liberal.

As a result of the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), which raised the number of objections required to not certify any election, there are sufficient numbers of election deniers in the House of Representatives to meet the new threshold that was established by the same law. A rejection to certify by the House would ensure that no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, so relegating the presidential campaign to the House of Representatives if the Senate is unable to achieve that level of objections.

Both Medish and McCleary believe that this is a significant factor to take into account. In contrast to the Senate, the whole House of Representatives is elected every two years, according to the informed House Parliamentarian sources to which the writers have referred. The rules of the House of Representatives need to be essentially re-adopted with each new Congress as a consequence of this rule change.

Consequently, if the House is determined to overturn an election and approve the ECRA’s implementing rules, then that important reform effort would be rendered obsolete and ineffectual. All things considered, the House of Representatives has full authority over the rules that govern its internal operations.

Following the presentation of the presidential race to the House of Representatives for a vote, the selection of the president is determined by the votes cast by the delegations of each state. Taking into consideration the results of the election in 2024, it is quite improbable that the Republicans would emerge victorious in this vote if it were to take place today.

If, for example, there is a speaker in the current Congress who refuses to accept the results of the election, then that speaker may use their position to influence the certification of House members and Electoral College slates in such a manner that would result in Donald Trump being elected president.

Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election were thwarted by several rulings made by state and federal courts that confirmed the correctness of the election process. Because the House’s internal political processes are not susceptible to court scrutiny, the likelihood of the speaker attempting to stage a coup that would deny the election is further heightened. Medish and McCleary, the writers of the piece, argue that “the majority in the House can make up the rules as they go without fear of court oversight.

“By the saying, “the sitting house majority is free to change or waive previously adopted rules.” The conclusion that may be drawn from this is that judicial review cannot be used to resolve issues that are considered to be political. Assuming that Republicans in the House are not already planning methods to take advantage of their majority to back Trump’s frequent charges of election fraud would be an idiotic assumption to make.

Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who holds the fourth-ranking position in the House of Representatives for the Republican Party, has recently broken her commitment to certify the results of the election that took place in November. Further, Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who did vote to certify the 2020 election, reminded The Hill that “… remember the United States House of Representatives is the ultimate arbiter of whether to certify electors.

” Massie’s vote was one of the votes that was cast to certify the election. According to his opinion, “that effort {in 2021} was doomed because Democrats controlled the House and Senate at that time.”

According to Medish as well as McCleary, “We can have no illusion in 2024 about the threat level…The party controlling the speakership has the potential power to reverse the results of the presidential election and deliver the White House to itself.” It is reasonable to be concerned that the speaker of the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives may potentially destabilize the republic.

We must be prepared to emerge victorious from this conflict. First and foremost, we need to express our gratitude to Medish and McCleary for illustrating to us how serious “dancing in the dark” can be and how chaotic it may get.

READ MORE:

American Democracy at Risk? Reps Will Decide