Here are the rules regarding Jan 6th vote to approve electors

[Ugnmoose]

The way I read it, both the Senate and House would have to vote concurrently to reject any State's electors...fat chance of that happening!!!

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_coll...

<snip>

Counting electoral votes in congress


Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

[sundancekid]

1. am I the only one who is getting this great tightening in the chest??

oh, merciful heavens, grant us justice.

[Doctor O]

2. After reading the above I had to go to the link. But basically,

this means that it will take a vote of both houses of Congress to not accept the Ohio EV. This means that no matter what happens with proof of fraud, election irregularities, Blackwell, that * will still be President and if anything happens to him Chancey will be President. and Kerry will never be unless elected in 2008.

Any constitutional lawyers disagree?

[jdog]

3. Not a lawyer but

this phrase:


"No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of."


Could there be some hope in that phrase? What exactly does "disposed of" mean in this case? Does it mean that Ohio could be thrown out altogether? And Florida? And NM? And....?

[Doctor O]

5. Don't think so. I believe disposed of means that

the house and senate meet separately, debate for 2 hours and then vote to accept or reject, then meet again and finalize votes.

[Doctor O]

7. Only if both houses vote to reject is my reading. And even

if one house votes yes and one votes no, the ev are still accpeted.

[lonestarnot]

4. You are so right my dear.... Sad but true... Not going to stop my protest!

I will be in Washington on Jan 6, 2005! To protest electoral college vote as we know the vote suppression and vote fraud machine tampering, default award rendering programs and exit polls cannot be lies. There is physical evidence of all and there is a class war going down! I am going to PROTEST AGAINST IT!

[jdog]

6. My hubby and I will be right there with ya! n/t

[lonestarnot]

28. See you there!

[IndyPriest]

8. Hey, get the right context!

If the situation in this paragraph exists, it's because either the OH Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will have ruled that the OH election was not legit, and so the first electors are not legit. In THAT context, with the whole world watching, I think it'll be VERY hard for even the congressional repubs to pull the lever for Bush. They will be admitting to fraud in broad daylight. They'd never win another election in 100 years.

[bunny planet]

9. They didn't really win this election and that doesn't seem to bother them.

Do these people who are now the majority in every branch of our government have any record of being ashamed of saying or doing anything, even with the whole world watching?

[IndyPriest]

11. Ah, but the whole world hasn't been watching...

but it will be!

[bunny planet]

17. I hope you are right. The world has been watching what * has been doing

for the past four years though, that's kind of what I was referring to. He doesn't seem to give a flying f*ck what the world thinks and neither do his minions.

[me b zola]

22. How it all saddens me so...

Our forefathers, being elitist themselves, recognized the very nature of how power corrupts. This is why such extensive checks & balances.

"THIS MOST PERFECT UNION..."

I can almost hear them think-tank as to how to usurp the ability of any one or group to exert their will upon the people. But the nature of power(and of evil) is that they will always find a way to defile that which is good & just.

I'm just soooo frickin' sad.

But still I fight....WE SHALL OVERCOME!!!!

[IndyPriest]

23. I hear, ya, me b --

It's along time to be torturing the soul of the country.

[jdog]

10. I thought it would exist because of

written objections from a senator and those in the House of Representatives.

[IndyPriest]

12. Yes, one sen. and one rep. ...

have to make an objection. But the CONTEXT for their objection will be that the first set of OH electors have already been judged by either the OH Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to be not legit.

[IndyOp]

13. "They will be admitting to fraud in broad daylight" - yes, but not quite..

They will stay comfortably in their world of denial/spin/lies -- particularly the Reps and Senators who owe their jobs to election fraud in previous years -- Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, whoever the scumbag is who is replacing Tom Daschle...

The OPTIMISTIC element of your post is *broad daylight* -- this is why I am here, this is why I support pushing for a Contested Election -- to expose as much fraud as possibly to broad daylight so that the people will see and know that the government is illegitimate. Exposing injustice is very, very important.

Edit: Addition -- I don't think either the Ohio or US Supreme Court has to judge the election as fraudulent. Contesting the election is a way for Congress to challenge an election they believe is fraudulent if the courts have not acted.

:kick:

[IndyPriest]

14. Yes, they will certainly TRY to stay in their holes...

but if this thing plays out as I think Arnebeck's expects, the whole country will know before they vote what going down.

And, yes again: the Congress has every right to contest the election on its own. My thinking has been that the results of Arnebeck's suit will be coming right at 'em when they gather on the 6th. Additional HUGE pressure.

[IndyOp]

15. I am on your side for sure IndyPriest...

I keep staring at the numbers in the Moss v Bush suit -- the 130,656 votes they say should go to Kerry. I think I might know how they got the estimate, but I can't make myself log onto the Ohio SOS site to see if I am right. If I am right, if Arnebeck is right, then I BELIEVE you -- there will be Constitutional Challenge.

The higher the stakes during the debate the greater the number of people who will know, but will the results be reversed -- those negotiations are going on right now in realms of influence about which we know little...

:tinfoilhat:

[bones_7672]

29. If you think that a Repub House & Senate won't vote for Bush

then have I got a deal on some sweet swampland for you!! The Repubs will remember that GWB got 3 million more votes than JFK (or, if you are in NY, JLK).

[Gloria]

16. The way I read it (and I'm NOT a lawyer) is that it all boils down

to the decision of the state, in this case, the Ohio Supreme Court. If the OSC decides Arnebeck et al are full of it, then the Bush electors are validated. If, on the other hand, the OSC decides in Arnebeck et al's favor, the Democratic electors are validated and we win the election. Under this scenario, there would be a helluva stink if Congress voted NOT to accept these electors.

Now, what are the odds of the OSC siding with us? Last I heard there were 1, possibly 2 Dems, but I think it's only one. Remember, the guy who ruled on the first Arnebeck case (s) should be recusing himself. So, how many Republicans are left to have to deal with?? I guess they could easily vote against the suit. On the other hand....these people are elected judges, sitting in the middle of Ohio which has had a lot more press coverage than the nation has and has lots of very angry people. I'm trying to imagine how it would feel to be there. One never knows. The Republican judges may rule honestly. Then again, they already may be under pressure from ROVE etc.

Conyers has said there will be a challenge both in the House and Senate. If we lose the Ohio suit, then a challenge may be just a good opportunity to reveal to the nation all the irregularities, etc. that most people are totally unaware of. He also talks about Republicans who want fair elections. That probably won't translate into a House vote in our favor, but may be helpful later on if there is a push to straighten out our elections.

I need a long rest....

[IndyPriest]

19. Almost, Gloria...

The OSC would NORMALLY be the last stop in Arnebeck's suit. BUT, sly dog that he is, Arnebeck has written the suit to make the OSC's (assumed) negative ruling directly appealable to the US SC. I wouldn't want to play chess with Cliff. He revealed most of his plan in an interview last week. Absolutely brilliant guy. Glad he's on our side!

[bones_7672]

30. I bet my firstborn, secondborn and thirdborn that the US SC won't touch

this with a ten-foot poll! If the Ohio SC turns the suit down the US SC certainly won't get involved in a state's election. And how do we know how the 2 Dems on the court feel about Arnebeck besmirching the election of the Chief Justice? They may actually like Moyer and then look unkindly at Arnebeck.

[IndyPriest]

32. Certainly a possibility. n/t

[Senator]

18. Probability of Success is Irrelevant - But we must act NOW

If we can get a Senator to publicly declare their intent to object NOW. We may not need the Ohio fraud results. (It's the suppression, stupid!) The public can turn on a dime if they're faced with the simple question these circumstances present:

Are poll-tax-lines for poor minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a
tolerable circumstance for you, personally. In essence, are you a racist or not?"

Go to the FAQ page here: www.thedeanpeople.org

Here's a snippet:

What are we accomplishing? It sounds futile. We should moveon and fight other battles. Shouldn't we?

It's never wrong to refuse to back down on principle. To go the distance. To take
it to the mat. To hold the finish. To...to...to... oh, phplhth !!!

On a more practical level, we are creating a real consequence for the situation.
No one among the DC/Media Aristocracy wants to see such a public (in fact,
historic) confirmation that while our kids are dying for democracy in far off lands,
we can't succeed in providing a reasonable level of it here at home.

There is also the implied threat to states that refuse to provide electoral equality.
They would start thinking "hey, something might actually happen next time if we
don't clean up our act." Everyone knows they don't put up a traffic light until after
someone killed.

Getting a Senator to "sign on" now would also dial up the media attention and
therefore public awareness.

_____
www.thedeanpeople.org

[IndyPriest]

20. You are right. But if I were just one senator contemplating this...

I'd wait until Jan. 3. Otherwise s/he'd be eaten alive by the BushCo. If, on the other hand, five or ten plan on contesting, I'd do it tomorrow. Strength in numbers.

[Senator]

24. More likely that...

...s/he'd be ignored. They need to keep this off the public's radar.

But to comment on a general point (and I don't mean to single you our personally here), we need to stop worrying about what "they" will say and do.

Our biggest obstacles are always our supposed "allies" and "leaders."

If no Senator goes public with a declaration soon, it will be nearly impossible to get the public on board to any sufficient level.

So waiting around for the "big complain" on Jan. 6th simply isn't doing any good. Which is why we've been pushing this effort exclusively from the start.

___
www.thedeanpeople.org

[understandinglife]

25. Correct & as you know, I support your efforts. I urge all of you..

...to read and re-read Congressman Conyers letter to the CEOs of the MSM. I have a post here with the link and some comments.

One sentence in that letter, and his comments on Ed Schultz yesterday, would suggest you are getting close to having more than one Senator challenge.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=185007&mesg_id=185175

Once several Senators and HR members start informing the public of why they are challenging the election: well, all the ambiguity of the 1877 Act, as amended in 1948 and codified in Title 3 of the United States Code will be exposed, for starters, but, for many other reasons particular to the 2004 national election process (e.g., civil rights violations, voter's rights violations, state election statute violations......) it won't matter because we will be in truly uncharted, chaotic waters.

(By the way, any doubt about the ambiguity -- read the reference in another post: http://www.house.gov/cha/electoralcollege/electoralcollege.html)


From a different perspective, you may find these two paragraphs of interest:

"As a result, no candidate may be elected as President, or as Vice President, who does not command the votes of an absolute majority of the maximum potential number of electors, whether those electors are members of the Electoral College, State delegations in the House of Representatives, or members of the Senate. The argument that a candidate can be elected to the Presidency based on a simple majority of the electors who may ultimately cast ballots for President on December 18 simply cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"Therefore, if neither Vice President Gore nor Governor Bush commands the allegiance of 270 electors when the Electoral College votes, then neither man can be elected President by the Electoral College. In this case, the House of Representatives will be required to elect the next President."

They are the concluding comments in a study done in late November 2000 and published by The Heritage Foundation on 5 Dec 2000:

The Number of Electors Necessary for the Election of a President
by Edwin Meese III, Todd F. Gaziano, and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

Don't gag on the source; the point is to know how they approached the issue of an election in which an ABSOLUTE majority of electoral votes is not achieved by a candidate for Presidency.

I wanted to bring that "absolute majority" issue into the context of what Congressman Conyers wrote today. Specifically:

"As you are aware, the American citizenry has voiced a collective lack of faith in government to carry out fair election procedures."

What happens once the challenge begins is so far from the knee-jerk "it reverts to the HR and Bush wins" as to be a waste of ATP on extending that knee. For starters, that statement of Congressman Conyers -- "the American citizenry has voiced a collective lack of faith in government to carry out fair election procedures." -- will be the focus. Simply, we have no election.

The People will suddenly have so very much to say to their respective Congresspersons about the folk who perpetrated the crimes against our fellow citizens during the 2004 national election process. Couple that with what happens 30 % of our fellow citizens who voted will have to face the reality that they have zero reason to think their vote was counted as they intended (something probably way less than 1 % of all those who voted on 2 Nov 2004 have any knowledge today).

To have any hope of converting the catastrophe into a genuine re-birth of the American franchise of Democracy we will need to adopt the "Ukrainian solution" -- ReVote.

Conclusion: do everything it takes to support Congressman Conyers efforts to have several members of the 109th US Senate stand, along with as many members of the HR as possible, and challenge the election. Push for multiple press conferences starting on 27 Dec 2004. It will not take very many minutes for millions of our fellow citizens to realize just how true Congressman Conyers sentence is once they start having the facts explained to them.

And, given BushCo's stellar performance these past six weeks, more than the gross disenfranchisement and 'irregularties' will motivate a demand for a re-vote.

Just make it happen.

Peace.

[Senator]

26. Thanks for the links and...

...just so no one is confused.

It should be made clear that the bit you quote from Meese and Gaziano, like much (ok, all) of what passes for neofascist "scholarship," is humorous at best. As they will be ready and willing to scream exactly the opposite at the drop of a hat (neckbraces firmly in place for the hypocritical whiplash), should the situation warrant it this time around (i.e., should the bushkid "lose" Ohio only - and only has 266).

Now, if the bushkid "loses" Ohio and Florida, they will of course start screaming, with their original certitude, that Kerry needs more than 270. The entertainment value would almost be worth it.

But as I said above, we should all spend less time worrying about what "they" say and do. As you say we must "make it happen."

And that requires us to "create the reality" to combat their created reality. (Ours of course grounded in something they are fairly unfamiliar with - actual reality.)

To create our (real) reality, it is our "allies" and "leaders" we need to focus on. And none of us should hesitate to put it to them starkly, as in:

"So, you're taking the side of the bush regime over Congressman Conyers and Reverend Jackson? That is how you want to be remembered?"

Call it tough love. But we can't leave any moral escape hatches.

Because there aren't any.

___
www.thedeanpeople.org

[understandinglife]

27. Fully agree with you and I posted that bit of "history"....

....to encourage everyone to realize that given the time of day and the direction the wind is blowing, those folk will ALWAYS revise and spin and shout.

All we need to do is tell the truth and demand accountability from ourselves and our representatives, all the time. And, we must be crystal clear, as you note, on what the choices are for each member of the 109th Congress -- bush totalitarian state vs American franchise of Democracy.

Peace.

[IndyPriest]

33. Completely agree. n/t

[George W. Hayduke]

21. Overview of Electoral College Procedure and the Role of Congress

Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540

Memorandum

November 17, 2000

SUBJECT : Overview of Electoral College Procedure and the Role of Congress

FROM : Stanley Bach, Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process Government and Finance Division
Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

This memorandum responds to numerous congressional requests for information on the presidential electoral vote process and the role of Congress in that process. The memorandum identifies the primary stages, requirements, and procedures for casting and counting electoral votes for the election of the President and Vice President. This process in most cases has been uneventful and noncontroversial. In the context of the 2000 presidential election, however, there has been speculation about a number of possibilities for which there may be no judicial or congressional precedent.

Because of the absence of specific and persuasive authority on some issues, and in light of the time frame in which this information has been requested to be presented, this memorandum attempts to at least identify and present some of the possible issues and questions which have been raised, even when not necessarily resolving them by reference to authoritative source material or decisions. The topics presented are arranged in the approximate order of their occurrence.

Much of what follows in this memorandum is based on the United States Constitution and on a federal law enacted in 1887 and amended in 1948, now codified in Title 3 of the United States Code. Reference is also made to congressional precedent and practice. Early congressional precedents on the counting of electoral votes, which may be found in Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, are sometimes inconsistent with each other and with more recent practice. This record, coupled with the events of 1877, provided the impetus for codifying procedure in the 1887 law. Precedents which predate the 1887 Act may be primarily of historical significance, particularly to the extent that they are inconsistent with express provisions of the 1887 Act, as amended.

----------------

That is just the introduction.The entirety of this overview is here:

http://www.house.gov/cha/electoralcollege/electoralcollege.html

[k8conant]

31. ISSUE: We need the Kerry/Edwards electors to vote in Ohio

...or to get the Houses of Congress to agree that the Bush electors voted incorrectly.

and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

[bones_7672]

34. And why not change lead into gold while you are at it? n/t

[k8conant]

35. Yes, why not? After all, the Bushies changed gold to lead.

[corbett]

36. That's Why Correcting Ohio This Week Is Crucial

While there remains a chance that both houses of Congress will vote correctly because of the 14th Amendment challenge (legally, they have no alternative), everyone posting in this thread is correct in pointing out that the righties will lie, cheat and/or steal to avoid doing that. It is for this reason that all of the efforts underway in Ohio right now are so crucial, especially the lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Ohio which demands an inspection of all of the ballots. If that court will set aside the first vote of the Ohio Electors and send CORRECT numbers of Washington, the whole thing becomes a lot easier.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4816

[Peace Patriot]

37. Fascinating thread! Kick! Some interesting polls today

I studied Constitutional law in college and I LOVE THE CONSTITUTION! It is such a brilliant piece of work (except for the Electoral College).

How to establish legitimacy. How to keep bastards from getting control of everything. Boy, did that know their stuff!

And when all else fails: Revolution! --to RE-establish legitimacy (according to Jefferson, that laser-like spirit--but not to be found in the Constitution) (--except in the sense that voting is a revolution).

Like Hitler, these bastards have invaded, twisted, shredded, disemboweled and jackbooted the law to their ends, and will continue to do so. That's a given. It doesn't matter one whit to THEM whether the election was legitimate or not, nor what the Constitution or any law says about it. They deliberately, methodically, and with several years of forethought, PLANNED to steal this election, SET UP the mechanisms to do so (electronic voting, no paper trail, secret source code), created a distraction in Ohio (a distraction that has turned out to be their "Achilles heel"), and went right ahead and manufactured votes for Bush (and stole votes from Kerry) all over the bloody country.

And the only ground to fight them on--the only thing that still seems to concern them--is public perception.

Here is what the opinion polls say today, and it's very interesting:

--57% of those polled oppose the Iraq war!

--49% of those polled approve of Geo. Bush (approval rating in the toilet--after a supposed "mandate" on Nov.2)

--about 20% think the election was rigged, the rest think it was fair and square.

So, we have our work cut out for us (as do Conyers, Kerry & Co.). We have a President without a "mandate," whom more than half the country feels is doing a lousy job, and with way more than half the country disapproving of his war policy, but hardly anyone in the country (except us 20% diehards) suspects the real reason for this extremely odd circumstance: that he WASN'T elected!

IF we can zero in on this strange fact (no "mandate" but somehow still in power), and APPRISE the populace (especially Kerry voters, the majority) WHY this is so, then we are on the road to restoring our democracy, no matter how much they further twist and jackboot the law.

We're in a power game, for sure, with a lot of backroom players (as IndyOp says--the "realms of influence" about which we know very little). (I also agree with IndyOp that power rests entirely with the Congress on certifying Presidential Electors--basically, they can do anything they want, even throw out the whole election and elect the President themselves.)

In those "realms of influence," there are likely some players on the wrong side who, a) might want to dump this enormous Bush Inc. mess (Iraq, nuked economy, etc.) on Kerry and the Dems, destroy the Dems with it, and make a comeback in '08 (with some Reaganesque "Silent Majority" type figure--say the Gropenator); b) despise Bush Inc., want power for themselves; or c) actually have the good of the country (or at least the good of the Republican Party) in mind.

Who knows what they will do? (Rigged elections wouldn't bother them in the least, but the falling dollar would.) (I've always wondered why these types supported the Nixon impeachment. Still wondering about it...)

The "realms of influence" likely also includes some players on the right side, who simply want justice--believers in democracy--or at least want things to be more or less on the up and up. They must have a lot on their minds these days.

And the visible parties--the Democrats--are caught in the middle, some protecting their fiefdoms (which they think won't fall in the fascist onslaught to come), and the real and true representatives of the people (maybe more than we think) who have had it with the Bushites, and who believe in good government and sharing the wealth.

The former will blow with the wind. And upon the latter rests the burden of alerting, informing and mobilizing the populace.

Let them worry about the niceties of election law. (Although they blew it with electronic voting, secret source code, Wally O'Dell, etc.), I think they're aware of that now, and know they MUST redeem themselves). But the law doesn't much matter (as it once did in the U.S. of A.). Whatever Bush's illegitimately elected Congressional majority does with this, the TRUTH is that the election was stolen.

And once the people whose votes were stolen grok what happened, it's all over for Bush and the neocons. They have no "mandate" (that's what the polls show). They have no real friends (and lots of enemies). They have nothing to fall back on except raw power (which I don't think others in the "realms of influence" will sit still for). (Or "black ops"--always a possibility with these people...)

What we're really looking at here is a Greek tragedy, with hubris as the key element. Arrogance. Overreaching. "The Gods" really frown on hubris.