Conyers said, “And we understand the law as well as you.”

understandinglife

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-02-05 07:13 PM
Original message

Conyers said, “And we understand the law as well as you.”

Link: Conyers "prepared" to contest Ohio Electoral Vote (Keith Olbermann)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Anyone can read 3 U.S.C. §15 and several links provide background info and context on it. For instance:

http://www.caef.us/objecting.html

One comment at DU contains text from as well as excerpts from the Constitution including the 12th and 20th Amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=220654&mesg_id=223819&page=

I’ve been reluctant to post on this matter for several reasons including: 1. I’m not a Constitutional scholar and 2. I am a scientist, a quantitative systems biologist. In other words, I know what I don’t know and I know a bit about how complex systems evolve or not. By the way, inflexibility is one of the traits that ensures a ‘not’ outcome.

That said, even a brief reflection on 6 Jan 2001 and what Congressman Conyers and some of his colleagues experienced on that day and all that he has experienced and learned since that day is likely to influence what he does on 6 Jan 2005. I view Congressman Conyers as an example of a robust complex system. I doubt if he is enlisting support from other members of Congress and recruiting co-signatories from the Senate merely to have a two hour debate or to create an opportunity for the HR to vote along party lines or … .

I don’t think so.

Why? For starters, because I accept him at his word: “And we understand the law as well as you.”

Why? Because the scale of the threat to our American franchise of democracy will require not just courage, knowledge of existing law, exposition of existing evidence of illegal election activities, and more, but it will depend on how robust, how creative, flexible and committed each member of the 109th Congress is to preserving that franchise and protecting the rights of the citizens whom they represent.

At this time, other than for a few individuals very close to Congressman Conyers, I think none of our fellow citizens know what will be the nature or the number of the challenges. I see little reason for Congressman Conyers or any Senator to announce strategy before they step forward on the afternoon of 6 Jan 2005 and challenge.

If the challenge is a clear and concise list of violations of federal and state laws, including charges that involve violations of Constitutional rights of citizens, and one Senator signs along with Congressman Conyers, then the 109th US Congress will indeed face a situation it has never faced before (especially since some of the putative Constitutional rights violations involve Amendments that did not exist in 1877). In other words, one Senator and one member of the House of Representatives is all that is required to set in motion something no member of Congress, or any other person on this planet, has ever experienced.

Do not underestimate how large an encounter of a complex system with an unknown variable that represents.

In my opinion, based on a very limited understanding of history and our Constitution, I think we face one type of Constitutional crisis if those who we elect begin to defend the franchise and the Constitution that is its basis -- that crisis, while it may get really tense and ugly, is one that is tractable. It could result in a stronger and more perfect union.

Given what will likely be in the clear and concise statements of illegal actions to disenfranchise our fellow citizens, those members of the 109th Congress who ‘sit on their butts’ will effectively be aiding and abetting crimes against those whom they are elected to protect.

I think if we do not see one Senator join Congressman Conyers in a challenge we are a different country than what is described in the Constitution. In other words, the Constitutional crisis we face if they do not act on 6 Jan 2005 is tantamount to setting the clock to 6 Jan 1774 and starting over.

Either way, when Scalia did what he did on 9 Dec 2000 and Senators of the 108th Congress sat on their butts in Jan 2001, the consequences were inevitable, vast and potentially lethal to our democracy. From the moment the electors were accepted by the 108th US Congress the core of our Constitution came under attack and at some point either the franchise is going to perish or the citizens are going to save it.

6 Jan 2005 is not just another battle with those clearly committed to a different form of American government.

These are the opinions of a concerned citizen who has probably less knowledge of the issues than most, if not all of you here at DU, and many others, so I have no pride or 'agenda' or special standing in stating them; it's just the way I see the situation.

What I do know with absolute certainty, however, is that I have no intention of relenting to those seeking to destroy our franchise of democracy, and on 6 Jan 2005 I'll know which members of the 109th US Congress prove their commitment to the Constitution and the rights of every citizen to vote and have their vote counted accurately.

Peace.

Conyers said, “And we understand the law as well as you.”

You Rock!