Texas’ Crenshaw pens op-ed explaining U.S. election process to rioters

Photo does not have a caption

Following Wednesday’s storming of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) shared his thoughts of those challenging the electoral count, explaining they misunderstand how America elects its presidents.

“On Wednesday the Capitol of the most powerful nation the world has ever known was stormed by an angry mob. Americans surely never thought they’d see such a scene: members of Congress barricaded inside the House chamber, Capitol Police trampled, and four Americans dead,” Crenshaw wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The congressman went on to explain Jan. 6 attack of the Capitol is the exact situation the founders of this nation sought to avoid.

“Our Founders thought it crucial to entrust a temporary body with electing the president for the simple reason that a standing body like Congress would face enormous pressure from voters, officeholders and interest groups. That could be, for example, pressure from a president or from 10,000 protesters outside the Capitol. For this reason, the Founders opted to diffuse responsibility to electors from each state,” Crenshaw wrote.

According to Crenshaw, those who showed up to make their voices heard in D.C. were falsely led to believe the final say in who is elected president belonged to Congress.

In argument, the congressman cited Article II of the Constitution, which states “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

“It does not say “certify.” It does not say “object if you disagree.” It does not say “object and decertify if you feel the state’s certification is wrong.” The only contingency the Constitution provides is in the case of a failure of any candidate to reach an electoral majority,” Crenshaw wrote.

The congressman went on to explain the certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6 was “merely ceremonial.”

“With or without the protesters, the unconstitutional right of objection some lawmakers invoked would have resulted in nothing more than a couple of hours of debate,” Crenshaw wrote.

Ultimately, Crenshaw’s op-ed communicated those who challenge the electoral count misunderstand the process of electing United States presidents.

Click here to read the entire op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.


About the Author: