Pence's Oath

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

Katherine Faulders, Mike Levine, and Alexander Mallin at ABC:

Speaking with special counsel Jack Smith's team earlier this year, former Vice President Mike Pence offered harrowing details about how, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald Trump surrounded himself with "crank" attorneys, espoused "un-American" legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a "constitutional crisis," according to sources familiar with what Pence told investigators.

...

"Not feeling like I should attend electoral count," Pence wrote in his notes in late December. "Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I'm not going to participate in certification of election."

Then, sitting across the table from his son, a Marine, while on vacation in Colorado, his son said to him, "Dad, you took the same oath I took" -- it was "an oath to support and defend the Constitution," Pence recalled to Smith's investigators, sources said.

That's when Pence decided he would be at the Capitol on Jan. 6 after all, according to the sources.

January 6 and President Selection

 From the J6 Committee:

At the Constitutional Convention 233 years ago, the framers considered but rejected multiple proposals that Congress itself vote to select the President of the United States.143 Indeed the Framers voiced very specific concerns with Congress selecting the President. They viewed it as important that the electors, chosen for the specific purpose of selecting the President, should make the determination rather than Congress:

It was desireable, that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men, chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.144

The Framers understood that a thoughtful structure for the appointment of the President was necessary to avoid certain evils: “Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption.”145 They were careful to ensure that “those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to thepresident in office” “were not among those that chose the president.”146 For that reason, “[n]o senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the number of theelectors.”147

...

In testimony before the Select Committee, [VP counsel Greg] Jacob described in detail whythe Trump plan for Pence was illegal:

[T]he Vice President’s first instinct, when he heard this theory, was that there was no way that our Framers, who abhorred concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person—particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election—in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election. And our review of text, history, and, frankly, just common sense, all confirmed the Vice President’s first instinct on thatpoint. There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the Vice President has that kind of authority.155

 143. The framers specifically considered and rejected two constitutional plans that would havegiven Congress the power to select the Executive. Under both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans, the national executive would have been chosen by the national legislature. See Curtis A. Bradley & Martin S. Flaherty, Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs, 102Mich. L. Rev. 545, 592, 595 (2004); see also 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,at 21, 244 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (introducing Virginia and New Jersey Plans), available at https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787vol-1; James Madison, Notes of the Constitutional Convention (Sep. 4, 1787) (Gov. Morris warning of “the danger of intrigue & faction” if Congress selected the President), available at https://www.consource.org/document/james-madisons-notes-of-the-constitutionalconvention-1787-9-4/

144. The Federalist No. 68, at 458 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 

145. The Federalist No. 68, at 459 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961).

146. The Federalist No. 68, at 459 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961).

147. The Federalist No. 68, at 459 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). See also U.S.
Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 (“but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of
Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector”).

`155. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Hearing on the January 6th Investigation, 117th Cong., 2d sess., (June 16), available at https:// www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-january6th

 

Pence on Overturning Elections

 

Pence

At The Guardian, Lloyd Green reviews biographies of Mike Pence:

Almost predictably, D’Antonio and Eisner manifest their displeasure with Pence from the outset. They rightly tag him for his tropism toward other people’s money and his discomfort with modernity. All of which is understandable, to a point.

What is disappointingly left unaddressed is that the US is the world’s most religious wealthy country, where two-in-five claim to pray daily and where evangelicals comprise nearly the same ratio in our armed forces, despite being only a quarter of the population.

The fact is the first amendment’s free exercise clause was designed to protect those who embrace discomforting creeds. In a narrow 7-2 decision this June, the supreme court sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In the majority’s view, the Colorado civil rights commission demonstrated “hostility” to the baker’s religious beliefs by ordering him to undergo anti-discrimination training.

Politicians less doctrinaire and more capable of nuance than Pence may yet be able to achieve a modus vivendi. With the Democrats in desperate search of a foothold in red America, the percentage of religious nones growing and evangelicals not backing down anytime soon, that result may even be a matter of civil and political necessity.

Cultural Cluelessness, Fake Quotations, and Irish Americans

Samantha Schmidt reports at The Washington Post:

“Top of the morning,” said Vice President Pence, as he hosted Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny at his residence for breakfast Thursday.

Really? The reaction by Irish on social media was palpable.

“Literally just shouted ‘NOBODY SAYS THAT’ at the TV,” a journalist in Ireland tweeted. “I’ve literally only ever heard that said by Americans,” another person said.

“How do all the Irish people not just go, ‘Nope,’ and leave the room?” tweeted another.Ireland’s leader was in Washington for a series of events in celebration of St. Patrick’s Day, including breakfast with the vice president, a luncheon at the U.S. Capitol, a one-on-one meeting with President Trump and a long-standing annual ceremony in which the U.S. president is presented with a bowl of shamrocks.

...

At the luncheon, Trump shared what he claimed was an “Irish proverb.”

“As we stand together with our Irish friends, I’m reminded of an Irish proverb — and this is a good one, this is one I like, I’ve heard it for many, many years and I love it,” Trump said. “Always remember to forget the friends that proved untrue, but never forget to remember those that have stuck by you.”
...

A White House spokeswoman told the Hill newspaper that the proverb was originally supplied in an email on March 8 by the State Department via the National Security Council “as building blocks in advance of this event.”

She said the “building blocks” were provided in the context of the shamrock ceremony and were ultimately used in the prepared remarks at the luncheon. While a number of websites, Pinterest boards and books do, indeed, refer to the quote as an “Irish blessing,” its origin was unclear.

Across social media, many pointed out that a poem by Nigerian poet Albashir Adam Alhassan includes a similar stanza. 

From the Census:

32.7 million or 10.2%: The number and percentage of U.S. residents who claimed Irish ancestry in 2015. This number was more than seven times the population of Ireland itself (4.6 million). Irish was the nation’s second-most frequently reported European ancestry, trailing German. Source:
2015 American Community Survey, Table B04006 2015 Population and Migration Estimates (Ireland Central Statistics Office)
...
20.2%: The percentage of Massachusetts residents who claimed Irish ancestry in 2015. New Hampshire, at 20.6 percent, was the only other state in which at least 20.0 percent claimed Irish ancestry. (The rates for the two states were not statistically different from each other.) California had 2.5 million people who claimed Irish ancestry, which was the highest of any state. Two other states — New York and Pennsylvania — also had more than 2.0 million Irish-Americans. Source:
2015 American Community Survey, Table B04006
...
$64,322: The median income for households headed by an Irish-American, higher than the median household income of $55,775 for all households in 2015. In addition, 6.5 percent of family households headed by a householder of Irish ancestry were in poverty, lower than the rate of 10.6 percent for all Americans. Source:
2015 American Community Survey, Table S0201, Selected Population Profile for Irish in the United States 2015 American Community Survey, Table S0201, Selected Population Profile for the Total Population in the United States
241,481: The number of foreign-born U.S. residents with Irish ancestry in 2015. Of these, 143,972 had become naturalized citizens. Source:
2015 American Community Survey, Table S0201, Selected Population Profile for Irish in the United States 2015 American Community Survey, Table S0201, Selected Population Profile for the Total Population in the United States

Sticking to Your Talking Points

Politicians typically use talking points to prepare for interviews. Sometimes, they stick to these talking points a little too slavishly.