I believe the election of Bush* CAN be legitimately overturned tomorrow

[Samantha]

This is not a criminal proceeding. It's a Constitutional one. Why cannot the standard to throw out the slate of electors from Ohio simply be gross election irregularity to the extent a representative vote of the people was not achieved? If that were unquestionably demonstrated, Constitutionally speaking, I believe the slate from Ohio could be disallowed.

Boies says in Courting Justice each state must adhere to its own written law for selecting electors in place November 2. That law in Ohio (its state Constitution) declared the slate was to be determined by the result of the popular vote. If that popular vote was demonstrably polluted, according to the U.S. Constitution, the State of Ohio could not change its manner for selecting its electors after the official election day, November 2, SO SINCE THE STATE VIOLATED IN OWN WRITTEN LAW FOR SELECTING ITS SLATE OF ELECTORS AND DOES NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT LAW FOLLOWING ELECTION DAY, its slate as presented to the Electoral College would fail to meet the U.S. Constitutional requirements. That's all it would take.

There's no written law which requires any burden of proof in this type of proceeding to meet standards of evidence existing in criminal proceedings. These proceedings must adhere to the U.S. Constitution -- not the laws of the federal government or the laws of the state government, both of which are superseded by the U.S. Constitution.

This argument of requiring proof of legal fraud in this proceeding is nice but not necessary. It fact, anyone publicly saying proof of fraud is necessary in a presidential election is necessary to void a slate of electors from any state is simply wrong. All that is necessary is to demonstrate a violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Demonstrating that Ohio violated its own law for selecting its electors does just that.

For further information, see Bush v. Gore in the "Courting Justice" book just released by David Boies. He states that the State of Florida's threat to throw out the Democratic slate of electors in 2000 should a recount hand Gore a victory could not Constitutionally had been done. Florida was bound on election day to choose its electors by virtue of the manner it had proscribed by its state constitution, and changing that manner following the date officially set by Congress for selecting that slate, election day, was not Constitutionally viable. Before the election yes; after the election, no.

We do not need the so-called smoking gun if we have an irrefutable Constitutional argument, and apparently Boies has given us one.

[politicasista]

1. He was cool!

[crispini]

2. If you toss out Ohio, though, Bush still wins, right?

He'll still have a majority of EV's IIRC.

[Samantha]

11. Not necessarily

We do not know at this point how many states did not live up to their own written law as to the manner in which their slates of electors were chosen. Conyers is reported to have evidence of violations in other states as well. Should "others" include for instance Florida, its slate must Constitutionally be disallowed as well. No state, according to Boies, has the option of changing their state constitutions AFTER the date of election. Boies states all states have written into their state constiutions the manner in which their slates will be elected shall result from the popular vote (with the exception of Maine). Thus ANY AND ALL STATES VIOLATING THAT WRITTEN LAW WHICH WAS IN EFFECT ON NOVEMBER 2, THE OFFICIAL DATE OF ELECTION ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS, WOULD BE BOUND TO ADHERE TO THAT LAW. There is no option for changing the law after the date of the election.

[Truman01]

59. If No one stood up in 2000 do you really think anyone

will have the balls to throw out a state's electors? or more than on state's electors?

SKINNER! I want my tinfoil hat back!

TC

[Samantha]

84. Today is a new day

All of us know a lot more today than we did four years ago when Gore should have been inaugurated as president. No one today thinks if he or she merely looks the other way, Bush* will move to the middle of the road because of an election controversy. He has declared he has a mandate and will expend his political capital derived from his popular vote win.

Perhaps once some naive politicians allowed for an election anomaly. They are no longer naive. We have seen first-hand what Bush* is capable of doing. There are thousands of people who might still be alive today had not Renquist, et al., declared Bush* president. 100,000 were innocent Iraqi citizens. Others were husbands, sons, wives serving in the military, dispatched by Bush* to fight an illegal immoral war. Some are family victims of people who died on 9/11.

If your question is do I think today a Senator might reverse himself or herself today on a decision he or she made four years ago, yes, I do.

[jmowreader]

106. The number required to win is 270. Without Ohio, Bush doesn't have it

Drop Ohio out of the mix and you've got 266 Bush, 251 Kerry. They were so nit-picky about following established election law in 2000 (one of the reasons the USSC decided the way it did in Bush v. Gore was that to do otherwise would push back the certification of the vote past the official date to do so) that we can come in and state that without Ohio's 20 votes no one's passed the official electoral threshold.

Think it can't happen? We're talking about decertifying a major state's electors--something that's never been done at least in my lifetime. If we can pull that off, we can certainly demand that they either recount Ohio or reballot it.

Reballoting would certainly be better for us, especially if we can prove that the Republicans stole the 20 EV in the first place.

[Guaranteed]

3. I'm not sure about the rules, but even if Ohio's 20 EV's were thrown

out, Bush would still win, right?

[DoYouEverWonder]

86. No, neither candidate

would have enough electoral votes to be elected.

Instead, we would have a constitutional crisis. If Congress doesn't certify the winner tomorrow, we will be in violation of the rules set out in the constitution that the Presidential election must be certified by Congress on Jan 6th. We are about to go where no American has gone before and we don't know what is going to happen.

[BlueEyedSon]

105. Yes, Bush would still have a simple majority of the remaining

valid electoral votes.

[sd_UDO]

4. Here's what we can do!

Yes, correct.

Congress always has the last say--that's why
Jefferson became President in 1801, after the
electoral vote was deadlocked. Congress chose ther
President in 1801! And probably one of the
better Presidents we've had, so far.

The Constitution and the First Amendment allows
us to do the following---->

http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/105/udo/

http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/105/udo/

[berniew1]

5. Tomorrows only a beginning; evidence is solid; but Repubs still majority

But if the public is educated and convinced, the outcome is inevitable.

[berniew1]

7. Documentation of vote machine fraud & suppression enough to challenge

There was widespread and systematic voter suppression of minority voters, dirty tricks, vote machine fraud, and other vote manipulation in Ohio, New Mexico, and Florida- that was of magnitude enough to call in question who won those states.

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.flcv.com/EIRSFla.html
http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
http://www.helpamericarecount.org/NewMexicoData/NewMexicoGeneralElection.pdf
http://www.flcv.com/bernalil.html
etc.

and also similar patterns in other states where the suppression and fraud did not change the election results including vote machine fraud in Calif., Pennsylvania, Washington, Texas, etc.
http://www.flcv.com/orangets.html
http://www.flcv.com/snohomis.html
http://www.flcv.com/mercerco.html
etc.

(the voter suppression of minorities in Mercer County is the worst I've ever seen-followup needed)

The unethical and illegal actions were so systematic and widespread that this cannot be allowed to continue uninvestigated and unpunished. There was a huge amount of obvious malfeasance that should be investigated and dealt with.

[Samantha]

12. It's not a matter of convincing the public

It's a matter of adhering to the Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

[tx_dem41]

94. Actually its a matter of convincing the majority of the Congressmen. n/t

[zann725]

77. That's why the Senate needs to Filibuster! If they can drag it out...

and discuss the details of the fraud televised on C-Span...dragged out over a few days or weeks...that would DEFINITELY turn things around.

I heard this morning that the legality of Filibustering this was being considered.

[Eye_on_prize]

81. it'scalled "2 birdies w/ 1 stone" - Filibuster the ultimate media buster

If the Dems filibuster this onto the headlines we're 3/4 the way home.

[GetTheRightVote]

6. I believe that Rep John Conyers has more then enough evidence to

to prove that a planned assault as acted upon on the American voter and their right to vote, this alone is breaking our laws and they are should be in prison as we speak. They are criminals as La Rouche stated today in his hearing, this election had to many problems not to be investigated and official positions not taken, especially that of the highest, President.

[politicasista]

8. Go Lil John!

LOL! :yourock:

[zann725]

78. I just hope that Kerry's recent email saying he's 'NOT joining in'

doesn't discourage others from moving forward on this.

[Der Blaue Engel]

83. I believe what he said was:

"not joining in the FORMAL protest." His call to action was clear participation in the INformal protest.

[FogerRox]

108. "La Rouche stated today " LOL--please, hes a fascist himself dint get me

started on La Rouche> the man who holds the bag from the Vatican bank theft. Look @ P2 in Italy. La Roach aint no Democrat.

Tip--we got Peeps inside his Org. And so does the Bush Crime family.

If you are in his group --be very carefully. They put him in jail before and wont hesitate to do it again. They put Margaret's brother in jail. Thats what happens to those people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

118. Why didn't he bring up this evidence?

:shrug:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

9. Fraud Big Enough To Drive A Country Through n/t

[Ian David]

10. It's a slam dunk!

:)

[Samantha]

13. It's a slam dunk and a closed case

There is no provision in the Constitution which allows a state to change the manner in which it changes its slate after the election.

Keep that in mind, regardless of what obsolete antiquated Safe Harbor law Ted Olsen is seen quoting on CNN. No Federal law supersedes the U.S. Constitution.

Read it and weep, Ted.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

15. Uphill Battle

Both houses of congress are controlled by the criminals themselves. True, not all of them, but there is strength in numbers, and unless the Democrats put up a somewhat unified front, it will be muted by the dictators who are ruling our country right now.

It was an open and shut case on November 3. And it still is. The question remains, will anything be done about it. We're truly on the verge of finding out. I sincerely hope this is something we are talking about in a positive manner next week, because that will mean things are truly afoot.

[Samantha]

17. I do not pretend to have a crystal ball which allows me to predict the

political future of this Country. But I have read that statement of Boies and it has become crystal clear what the law of the Constitutional requires. What remains unclear is how successful our Senators will be in insisting that law prevail.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

14. send this argument to your Senator (or any Dem Senator)-makes a good point

Hope something happens with this- at least somebody speaking out- that would at least get on the corporate evening news and that will bring attention to the issue-something they definitely do not want

[Samantha]

16. I spent a week analyzing why we have this huge communications gap here

Here's the reason: legal experts are debating the definition of fraud. That definition is relevant in legal proceedings.

Constitutional experts are separate and distinct from legal scholars. The standards are not the same.

This argument adheres to the Constitutional law which supersedes any Federal or state law. Thus depending on the lens through which one views the grounds on challenging Bush* and a legitimate win, one can argue what proof is necessary to overturn the election.

The simple answer to what is necessary to overturn the results of this election is proof of violation of the U.S. Constitution, not proof such as that required in a legal criminal proceeding. If Conyers has the proof various states violated their state constitutions, he possibly has enough to Constitutionally challenge all slates of electors from all states doing so. That's the ultimate bottom line.

Do not allow yourself to be distracted from that issue. That's it in a nutshell. We will hear a lot of arguments about state laws, and the U.S. Code, but none of these override the U.S. Constitution. If a Federal law is violated, and adhering to that Federal law violates the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution prevails, and the Federal law falls by the wayside.

Again, read it and weep, Ted Olsen.

[housewolf]

25. Does Conyers have or think that he has

the requisite proof of violations of state constitutions?

It didn't read to me as though he would be challenging based on that argument. Does it read so to you? Or do you have some other basis for thinking that he can and will provide proof of violation of the constitution?

From his report:
"We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people's trust in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election laws."

Thanks,

[Samantha]

38. I am not sure, in all honesty, exactly what Conyers has

If you happen to see my thread the other day "Never Let Them Know What You Are Thinking," I believe this is what is happening now. I believe some cards are being held under the table until the magic moment. I believe it would be foolish for Conyers to publicly reveal exactly all of the evidence he and the committee has amassed before the Electoral College votes. The time to reveal the most incriminating evidence is immediately following that objection.

In that manner, the Republicans have the least available time to develop their usual smoke and mirrors response. They would be at a decided disadvantage.

[housewolf]

47. I see...

I did read your post the other day and thought it quite cogent.

So I guess we fax your argument to everyone we can think of between now and then and pray that it hits an appropriate target who understands and knows what to do with it.

Where are you/what time zone? Is it the middle of the night where you are? I'm in Phoenix, it's only 11:30 here so it's not too late to do some emailing and faxing.

Beth

[Imagevision]

18. Samantha! -- Nice piece, perhaps Conyers & Co are among other

things taking all laws into consideration to get this into an inquiry and maybe into the courts? ...13 hours left!!!

[Samantha]

23. I am sorry it didn't all come together until the 11th hour

but at least I got it in before the "bewitching hour."

I believe Boies released this book a week before the election to drive home this point. It has stayed with me. Reading all the debates here this week fraud versus no evidence of fraud, all of a sudden it fell into place. This is not a legal proceeding. Thus the standards of evidence for criminal proceedings are moot. What is relevant are the Constitutional requirements. That's it.

We have to stay focused of what exactly prevails. The Republicans will cite many obtuse, misleading laws which do not transcend the U.S. Constitution. We cannot let them Jim Baker us again. We cannot.

[Bill Bored]

19. But who interprets state law?

In FL, there's supposed to be a law requiring paper recounts. But they have DREs without paper ballots. Robert Wexler sued the state, or county, or Teresa LePore, or some other Jeb Bush hack, and so far has lost. This means there's a FL court somewhere in one of those swamps that said, rightly or wrongly, that he didn't have a case or couldn't prove it or the law wasn't violated or whatever. So does the Congress have a right to come in and tell the failed state of FL what to do in this matter? I don't know. Lots of debates about states' rights, aren't there?

[Samantha]

26. These are convoluted issues

Here's the point.

The Constitution delegates the right to determine how slates are elected to states. The legislature writes the law into the state Constitution. There is no interpretation.

All states (except Maine) state their slates will be elected by the result of the popular vote. If any state did not adhere to this law, there is no Constitutional avenue to change the manner in which they select their slate after the official election date.

If Conyers can prove this did not happen, the slates of states violating their own laws are out. There is no recourse for changing a state law after November 2. None.

How does Conyers prove Ohio broke its own law. He does this via proving substantial election irregularity. Fraud is not necessary because this is not a criminal proceeding. What is necessary is proof the slate was not chosen as a result of the outcome of the popular vote. (Blackwell idiocally put in writing he declared the winner of Ohio before the votes were counted. Not that that would prove Conyers' case; just a footnote to the discussion here.) If Conyers can demonstrate the slate of electors from Ohio was not chosen as a result of the popular vote, Ohio is out.

[Bill Bored]

34. I think this is his plan, if he gets a chance to present his evidence.

But Congress still gets to vote on it and we know how they will vote, don't we?

[Samantha]

40. Let me ask you this

In all honesty, if it is demonstrated Rove rigged the election for Bush* and Bush* did not legitimately win, what Republican Congressman will stand in front of the CSPAN camera and champion Bush* anyway (in front of his or her Christian-right constituency). None of them will. No politican will sacrifice his or her political future to save Bush*s political hide. That's the way Washington works.

[Bill Bored]

52. You neglect the spin factor.

They will take this information and twist it into so much Orwellian new-speak in any way possible to discredit the allegations. Truth doesn't matter to these people. The Constitution doesn't matter to them either. I hope you're right, but you'd have to get Karl Rove or Blackwell to swear on a stack of Bibles that they stole it for these other thugs to admit it. Think about it: If Bush's election is illegitimate, it calls all the others into question too, at least in the mind of the public. They will not allow that.

[TruthBeTold22]

102. Where is this all going?

See below

[BrklynLiberal]

20. But if we have to depend on the Supreme Court for the final interpretation

of this. are we going to be inevitably screwed again by Rehnquist, Scalia and their cohorts

[Samantha]

31. The Supreme Court has no authority to override the Congress on this

issue.

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Terrific!!!!!!!!!

[Samantha]

35. Hey thanks, but don't thank me, thank our founding fathers

That's why Baker tried to goad Gore into taking the issue to the courts in 2000. Baker knew if Gore won via a judicial opinion, his legitimacy would be questioned. Gore refused to take bait. Thus, the Republicans were forced to go to court first. Hence, it is Bush* who carries the stain of illegitimacy.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide who is president. That too is it in a nutshell. This is a Congressional issue, not a Supreme Court political call.

[Raksha]

66. Which is probably one reason for Kerry's early concession.

He wanted to make sure it was Congress and NOT the Supreme Court that made the judgment call this time.

[Pachamama]

68. BINGO! Rove is screwed.....

That darn Constitution...they didn't get rid of it soon enough....

:bounce:

[zann725]

79. And they didn't get rid of Filibuster YET...

n/t

[Imagevision]

21. Only bummer is Cheney is the chairman tomorrow -- so that should

be interesting to watch -- thank God this thing will be recorded!

Perkaps Cheney will use the F word again?

[RevCheesehead]

28. Are you kidding? I'm looking forward to watching Crashcart squirm! n/t

[FreepFryer]

54. LOL

[Salomonity]

22. that's dynamite--in a bad way

This makes it sound like any violation whatever in an election should result in the slate being thrown out.

It's now clear that Washington state violated its own election laws in various small ways, and perhaps some major ones. What happens if the GOP votes to discard their electors?

Remember, W is farther down the alphabet than O, so they'll get to wait and see what happens with Ohio first.

[Samantha]

33. Let's be specific here

We are discussing the Constitutional requirements for presidential elections.

[drm604]

43. Imagine if they got into a tit for tat game of challenging

blue and red state's votes!
"You challenge one of mine, I'll challenge one of yours."

"We have reason to believe that precint 11a in Smith County in your state closed one second early!"

"Yea, well the lighting in precinct 20c in Jones County in your state was insufficient, making it slightly more difficult to read the ballot and violating the voters' rights!"

Note that I'm not in any way belittling the very real and very troubling problems that occurred on November 2. But I just had this image of them eliminating all 50 states one at a time in a tit for tat snit and it tickled my funny bone.

[zapped 1]

24. superb point, Samantha

This is one of the most important posts I have had the pleasure to read here.

[Samantha]

46. If WE had not all come together here and debated these issues

hot and heavy, the truth would not have risen to the surface. Thank you for your kind words.

[housewolf]

27. Samantha, how

are you going to get this stuff to Conyers or someone? There are exactly 12 hours left....

[politicasista]

29. Yes, Conyers needs this ASAP

:yourock:

[FreepFryer]

82. He's got it now.

[Samantha]

41. I am counting on everyone here to help me

I don't know why it didn't all come together until now, but at least it is here. We have to convince a lot of people that is the overriding point at issue.

There is no definitive evidence of fraud necessary.

[FreepFryer]

30. Believe, Samantha. Great post, encouraging. As another poster noted a...

... while back, this is a complex interaction of Government. And, they've not wanted to tip off as to their strategies, but I have heard this argument from some encouragingly involved people.

We'll see... but whatever happens, we must believe in our ability to persevere.

Excellent post. Keep your beliefs despite whatever verbal attacks, etc. may be leveled at you.

There is something to that 'faith-based' thing, ESPECIALLY when those who don't share the faith can't refute the facts...

[Samantha]

42. We can take back this election if we only insist adherence to the

Constitution. That's the bottom line. We can't take our eye off the political ball. And thank you for your kind words.

[FreepFryer]

53. "I Support The Constitution'

[Samantha]

36. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

If you have taken part on this forum on this issue and have been contacting any other interested parties or your Congressional represenatives, please share this point with them.

I beg you.

[zapped 1]

37. absolutely. Everyone!!!

I wish this could have been addressed sooner-forgive me if it has and I missed it- but I am still hopeful...

Thank you once again.

[Samantha]

44. I did post about Boies' argument when I read it

I am just telling you, like others, I just got caught up in reading the dispute over what constitutes evidence of fraud, and I didn't pull it all together until just a few minutes ago. I was reading a debate, once gain, on why we cannot win this, and suddenly it all fell into place.

Quite frankly, I don't see any way out of this for Bush* and Rove. There's no venue for changing the way a state selects its electors after November 2. The irony of it is the judge stalling the decision in Ohio did us a favor. Now the court's can't rule on this. It's entirely in the lap of Congress.

Isn't political poetic justice beautiful?

[fooj]

48. How about TIA?

and BRAD BLOG, CANNONFIRE, RHANDI RHODES, MMOORE, JACKSON...What do you think? Thank you for this, Samantha! A true patriot!

[fooj]

51. OMG!!! I almost forgot WILL PITT!!!

He is in DC!!!!!Right there! Right now!!

[FreepFryer]

39. ANDY NEEDS TO GET THIS AS WELL. He has a shortcut to Conyers.

(pm sent)

[housewolf]

45. Oh GOOD thinking!!! Yay Andy! n/t

[grays4u]

49. won't happen

Constituionally there's no way that can happen. Even if 20 senators stand up, they'll be voted over and Bush will win. Sorry!!

[New Earth]

50. k

:hi:

[ebayfool]

89. CLASS 1?

[New Earth]

97. a lucky class 1

:hi: made it past 30?

[Samantha]

55. No Senator or Congressional represenative will protect Bush*s

career at the expense of their own. In other words if definite proof is submitted that a determination cannot be made what the result of the popular vote is in Ohio, Ohio must be discarded. Constitutionally, it cannot be counted.

If you think even Tom Delay would stand in front of the CSPAN camera and publicly tell the citizens of Texas he's voting for Bush* anyway, I don't think so. Delay will not sacrifice his career for Bush*. That's not what makes Washington go around. When push comes to shove, every one will protect their own political flanks first. It's all going to come down as to what exactly is publicly exposed tomorrow. If you don't believe that, you are not from this town.

[zann725]

80. How about a Filibuster? There was talk of that this morning.

That could go on for days....weeks...

[DoYouEverWonder]

88. Not if there are not enough members in Congress tomorrow

for a quorum to override the challange.

The Repugs did not expect a serious challenge and a lot of members have not been following these election fraud and irregularities issues. From what I heard on DU, there many not be enough members present to override the challenge. Since the Constitution mandates that Congress certify the Presidential election on Jan 6th, if for whatever reason, even a technicality, they can't certify, then we will be in the midst of a good old fashioned constitutional crisis. Bring 'em on. I can't wait.

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. Sorry?

Yes you are! Indeed!

[redacted]

56. KICK Emailing to my media list now

[Helga Scow Stern]

57. I will fax it to the real Dem and moderate Republican Senators.

First, I will try to distill the argument.

[Ian David]

91. Can you please post it here once it's distilled?

[FreepFryer]

58. Sent via fax to ~20 Dem Senators.

[zapped 1]

60. please keep kicking this through the day

[tuvor]

61. Kick

[redacted]

62. KICK Emailing to my media list now (29 addresses)

[redacted]

63. KICK Emailed to RAW STORY

Gave up trying to find email address for Brad Blog; his graphic design is a disaster.

[redacted]

64. kick again

[zapped 1]

65. kick thanks

I have to go but will resume during the day.

[BigBearJohn]

69. I just emailed Brad for you

[redacted]

71. KICK thank you BBJ

[BradBlog]

74. Thanks BBJ...

It may be that I'm just too tired at this point to fully comprehend...But it seems to me that though the point is well-enough reasoned, there is one big factor that would still need to be overcome for this argument to matter/work.

That is: Republicans would need to concur, and vote to object to the Ohio Electors on the grounds you mention (after a debate, after one House Member and one Senator challenge those electors).

While the challenge could happen, I'm not sure how Republicans would then vote to uphold this Constitutional argument that you make -- even if it is a sound one -- since nothing but their consciences would force them to do so.

And not sure we should wait for *that* to occur! :-)

Nonetheless, since I'm so tired and perhaps overlooking the bigger picture, I've forwarded the link to this thread to folks on the Judiciary Comm. that will be able to give it a look in the morning and make sense of it if it is useful to them.

Thanks BigBadJohn for sending me an alert.

(And it's not really *that* hard to find me Email address at The BRAD BLOG is it? My volume of mail, anyway, wouldn't indicate that it is! :-)

Brad
The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com

[Pachamama]

67. I don't know who you are, but I like the way your brain works...

:hi:

I'm reading your post....this is amazing.... :hug:

[Swamp Rat]

112. Amen!

:hug:

[Machiavelli05]

70. no.

The votes are needed in Congress. There arent close to enough votes even if ALL the Dems voted for it plus some liberal Republicans. I assure you the Blue Dog caucus in the house would split - requiring even more Republicans.

ANYTHING in Congress will go nowhere - b/c there arent votes. The electoral votes wont be rejected. EVEN if Conyers beat Congress over the head with stronger proof than we know right now is available, GOP party loyalty in the House and Senate is so solid that we wouldnt get the votes.


Pursue a constant effort before nov 2005. Lets solve to problem instead of dwelling on the past problems! Lets change the future instead of reliving the past.



edit: its not whether this argument is valid - b/c it sort of is. What the book says is valid. Your application to this instance is not. In order to say that Ohio violated its own laws - there needs to be precedent to establish that, i.e. a court finding that says those laws were violated. Congress, instead, will only vote saying whether they interpret it as being a violation of Ohio's own law. If they vote along party lines, which they undoubtedly would in a best case realistic scenario, it would get shot down.

Something has to happen to convince GOP that it was fuckedup. Otherwise its DOA.

[zapped 1]

73. yes

This is a Constitutional Issue that transcends Party loyalty. There are some good people on both sides of the aisle who should be outraged if the report is as good as we suspect. Add the majority of voters who will just be learning what we've known for months into the equation along with MSM saturation. It is entirely plausable,IMHO.:hi:

[Machiavelli05]

75. you dont actually expect the GOP members to be outraged?

They'll defend and nitpick to the end


If there were a Democratic House and Senate... History would might be made tomorrow and Kerry would be declared winner.

Of course, history would then be made in 2006 when the Dems lost every competative senate seat, and the House swung to a 50 seat margin for GOP.

[Samantha]

85. No, there does not need to be a precedent

This is not a legal proceeding.

Conyers said there is no precedent for disallowing the slate of electors from a state during an electoral college vote. (I believe this might be incorrect, but I can't research it now. I know during 2000, I heard that it had happened on one or two occasions, but I have no link.)

We are in Constitutional groundbreaking territory here.

[Machiavelli05]

116. IF it had continued to procede in 2000 - then yes this argument is valid

However, the case here is totally different.

One was about allowing a recount to continue - and what votes would be counted.


This is about long lines, fraud, voting machines, board of election rules, biases, etc etc etc.

Same argument cant be applied.

[redacted]

72. KICK and emailed to Senators Boxer, Schumer, Obama, Clinton

Exhausted and have to finally retire for the night (12:45am here in San Francisco). Thanks everybody for staying up and working so late. See you all at about 7AM PT. My dog won't go to bed without me and he's crying!

[zapped 1]

76. thank YOU !

kick

[BernieBear]

87. Kick n/t

[bemis12]

90. There's never been a doubt

That Senators and Representatives are fully within the law should they challenge, and even reject, electors. I haven't seen any cogent arguement to the contrary.

There is, however, plenty of room for discussion or whether they will, or even should. At any rate, it promises to be an interesting day. Or not.

[Ian David]

92. Can we all please contact Rep. Stephen Lynch?

It looks like he hasn't committed to contesting the vote yet.

Rep. Stephen Lynch
[e-mail]

Washington, DC Office

319 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

(phone) 202-225-8273
(fax) 202-225-3984

Boston Office


88 Black Falcon Avenue
Suite 340
Boston, MA 02210

(phone) 617-428-2000
(fax) 617-428-2011


Green ArrowDirections to the Boston Office


Brockton Office

Brockton Federal Building
166 Main Street
Brockton, MA 02301

(phone) 508-586-5555
(fax) 508-580-4692

[Samantha]

93. Let's look at the words of The Constitution, David Boies and John Conyers

Article.II. (of the Constitution)

"Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

* * *

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

(Note two important points in these words: each states appoints electors in the manner the legislature has directed, that is via its state constitution.) All states (with the exception of Maine), according to David Boies, have chosen to chose the party of its slate of electors based on the result of the popular vote.

Second point, those words regarding The Congress may determine the time of "chusing" the electors refers to the date Congress has selected as our literal Election day. The average person considers election day as the day the people vote. A literal interpretation of the Constitution says this is also the day each state choses its electors, based on the manner proscribed by the Legislature.

Let's move to the words of David Boies in Courting Justice, the Chapter on Bush* v. Gore:

Referring to the 2000 election, Boies says on page 399:

"The Constitution provides that Election Day shall be determined by Congress and "shall be the same day through out (sic) the United States."* (note: footnote below) Congress had set November 7 as Election Day. The Florida legislature had no power to choose electors on a subsequent date. Tradition, respect for the will of the people, and good sense might counsel against a modern state legislature's attempting to arrogate to itself the power to choose the state's presidential electors, but as long as the legislature voted itself that power on or before Election Day and exercised that power on that date, such actions would be constitutional. Once November 7 had come and gone, the Florida state legislature was without power to change its mind. That former Secretary of State Jim Baker, a well-respected lawyer, would make such a suggestion (and that certain vocal Republicans members of the state legislature would take steps to respond) showed how determined the GOP was to take any action necessary to prevent the results of the recounts from deciding the election (translation: win at all costs).

(*Footnote from above): ...The Florida courts held (correctly) that a revote here was barred by the constitutional requirement that Florida's electors be elected the same day as the electors of every other state.

Move to Conyers statement. John Conyers has said there is no precedent for challenging a slate of electors and refusing to allow that state's slate to participate in the vote of the Electoral College. (I have no link but I believe it is in his report.) Thus, we are on Constitutional groundbreaking territory.

Summary of these thoughts:

The date of the election of selectors is the date Congress sets aside as the official election day throughout the Country. This is declared in the supreme law of the land.

The populace votes on that day. Within each state, whatever manner has been determined by the legislature to ascertain the party of the slate of electors prevails as a result of the outcome of the popular vote. That manner cannot be altered after our official election day.

If Conyers can demonstrably prove there is enough election irregularity that the result of the popular vote could not legitimately be established on election day, the state legislature of any impacted state has no Constitutional authority to alter its state constitution AFTER the date of the election.

Choosing as an example, Ohio and Florida, should Conyers be able to prove no legitimate mechanism existed to determine the true outcome of the popular vote as a result of a myriad of irregularities, it follows any impacted state experiencing those "irregularities" have no Constitutional alternative for altering the party of the slate of electors. That slate must as a matter of necessity be disqualified from participating. There is no out.

If Senators count the votes today, and the slate from Ohio, for instance, is challenged, no caucus by Congressmen or Senators can constitutionally override the words of the Supreme law of the land. In other words, no Congressional agreement arrived at as a result of any objection lodged today can give any state legislature the power to amend its state constitution after the official election day. In short, the state's electors are OUT.

If we apply the strict constructionist language of the Constitution and do not allow ourselves to be bombarded with quotes from federal or state law which are superseded by the supreme law of the land, and if Conyers can prove the outcome of the popular vote cannot be legitimately ascertained -- which is necessary to elect a slate of electors -- there is no alternative for the state to pursue as a remedy. None.

I do not see how this simple three-step strategy can be challenged. Yes, it can be "spun" by the win at all costs Republicans, but can it be Constitutionally knocked down? Not without amending the Constitution and obviously that won't happen today.

With these simple three strikes, Bush* can be ejected from his presumed second term.

[El Vengedor]

95. Be careful about precedents you set

The votes are just not there to overturn the election. You'd have to be delusional to believe that enough Republicans would cross over for Kerry to win.

Imagine it's 2008. The Democratic candidate wins a close election and the same thing happens, but this time it's in a state the Democrats narrowly won. In a close election, the losing side ALWAYS finds irregularities they claim would have tipped the election the other way. The chances are the Republicans will still control Congress. Reread your post. What makes you think they won't use the precedent you set to overturn the election?

The standard for rejecting a state's slate of electors needs to be very high in order to prevent abuse by either side.

[Samantha]

96. What exactly is the standard for rejecting a state's slate of electors?

Let's see you name them for us all to read.

As far as my being delusional, I deal in facts. Each Senator is sworn into office. That Senator whether Republican or Democrat must uphold the Constitution. Failure to do so for political reasons can result in removal procedures being initiated. If it becomes clear this evolves into a political remedy as opposed to a Constitutional remedy for failure of Senators of either party to protect the Constitution, voters from each state can take steps to remove their represenatives via the rules in place.

For any Senator not to protect the Constitution is a violation of his oath. There is no justification for not doing so. The only question is will those of us pursuing this challenge hold our represenatives' feet to the fire. They must do what they have been elected to do and what they have sworn to do. If they do not, they might pay a political price.

[El Vengedor]

98. Speaking of political prices

What sort of a political price do you think Republican senators or congressmen would have to pay if they voted to put Kerry in office? The voters who elected them are Republicans and almost certainly voted for Bush. How do you think those voters would react? If a senator does object and it gets to a vote in the House and Senate, how will you react to any Democrats that vote against the objection? This is the essence of politics. I'm sorry but I think you are very naieve in your thinking

[Samantha]

99. I am not in the least naive and I am not getting into a debate with you

over anything that does not pertain to the main thrust of this thread. I am staying focused on the Constitutional requirements governing this situation and possible ramifications for those who do not adhere to their oaths of office and the supreme law of the land.

[El Vengedor]

101. Let's wait and see what happens

I always expect these guys to do whatever is in their own best interests (i.e. what it takes to stay in office). I am rarely surprised.

[DELUSIONAL]

114. to me it means that each state has to raise their standards

in how all votes are counted and everyone who is eligible will be allow to vote.

Also partisan politics must be taken out of the vote counting.

The argument that at some time in the future the GOP will exact revenge on the Democrats because the Democratic leaders are standing up for democratic value is bogus.

We the citizens must be sure that the people in elected office are legitimate -- and with all the vote fraud reported in several states and the GOP attempting to block a valid re-vote -- I as a citizen wonder how many of the current "elected" individuals serving are legitimately holding that office.

If this means that the democrats also need to run a fraud free future elections -- good!

The whole voting process needs to be cleaned up -- from the precinct level on up to the State Secretary of State Office. If the action of the few brave democrats today starts this process -- then this is good.

If the GOP at some future date decides to challenge an elected Democratic President -- so what? If the democrats force changes to clean up the voting fraud issues and assuring that every eligible voter can vote without waiting hours in line or facing bogus challenges to their right to vote -- then democracy will flourish and survive.

[liberalMabhool]

100. Samantha you need to get in the real world Lady.

Today the Senate except for one or two senators will vote for Bush to be President and the House except for 20 to 30 congressmen will for Bush to be President.

[Samantha]

109. I assure you

I live, work and breath in real political world, the political capital of the world.

[TruthBeTold22]

103. Where is all this going

Question: What "evidence" does Conyers have?

He has allegations, testimony from public hearings, affadavits that no one on the other side has had the opportunity to examine, "witnesses" who haven't been put under oath and cross examined.

I know the standards are different in this type of proceeding but does anyone think anything that Conyers has rises to the level of "legal" evidence? Where's the due process proceedings in this?

Were the witnesses at Conyers' hearings under oath?

Has anyone been held to a legal standard yet on anything that has been alleged?

After the challenge today, if a Representaqtive and a Senator object then each House goes into seperate session to debate the challenge for two hours. At the end of two hours there's a vote taken...anyone want to hazzard a guess at how that will go?

If you say that a repug will be violating his oath by playing politics and NOT voting for overturning the election...how can anyone not say that a supporter of the challenge is isn't guilty of the same thing without any of the following:

-investigations by legal agencies
-prosecutions of alleged offenders by duly selected/elected prosecutors
-convictions in a court of law

[Samantha]

110. This is not a criminal or civil proceeding in a court of law

It is a Constitutional proceeding. There are different standards to apply and different rules in play than in a court of law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is that law we seek to assert here.

[TruthBeTold22]

115. Different Standards

Yes there are different standards...but you must still have indisputable proof or else you are painted as sore losers.

[redacted]

107. KICK

[redacted]

111. KICK in honor of Boxer, Clinton, Obama

[redacted]

113. KICK in honor of Dodd, too

[Lizzie Borden]

117. KICK!

:kick: