a lousy two hour debate is all we get. . .?

[stellanoir]

Yes there have been other threads about this afternoon's Chip Reid (MSNBC) report on the likelihood of the certification of electors being contested by members of Congress and a member of the Senate.

But I have a specific query. . .

I foolishly thought if this 1 member of both the Congress and the Senate contested that the process would be suspended and an investigation would be launched. Reid said that according to a provision passed in (I believe he said) in 1887 that if this was to occur then the Senate would adjourn for a two hour debate and then the certification would take place. Nothing will change. Bush will be inauguarated.

How can anything this complicated be resolved in the legislature involving 250 + people in two lousy hours. . .?

Does anyone know any details about this completely inane and totally archaic provision?

[theboss]

1. Yep, them's the rules.....

There needs to be a handbook on this.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

11. I'm just finishing exactly that -- couple of hours or sooner

My analysis was originally started to confirm or deny the possibility and probability of an event that could redress the fears of many Americans, specifically that their constitutionally guaranteed right to honest representation in the government, that they themselves wholly constitute, was denied.

Over 3000 web pages I've consumed is being distilled down to a single post covering:

1. Procedurual Analysis
   
   
2. Background & Historical Context
   
   
3. Obstacles
   
   
4. Indicators of Hope
   
   
5. "The Bombshell"
   
   
6. Afterplay and Fallout
   

Its extremely challenging to the soul to see the way this chess game can play, but somebody's gotta do it...


Steeled Against All,
FULL_METAL_HAT

[stellanoir]

18. Sounds like you've done some

great research. Please post a link to your findings when you have one.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

76. Hope is on the way!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x242355

I know its very very long, but if you can read the whole part 1 as I think it does a good job to help see there is, however dim, light at the end of the tunnel!

Keep it kicked :)

Steeled Against All,

FULL_METAL_HAT

[garybeck]

2. they should adjust for inflation

back in the 1700s, two hours was much more time. Adjusted for inflation, there should be about 2 weeks of debate.

But seriously, Conyers was on AAR today and he said that once the break into the houses, it's hard to say what will happen. Just because the rules say 2 hours, doesn't mean someone can't call to extend it.

[suziedemocrat]

34. Oohhh - THAT's good news! :toast: n/t

[bowens43]

3. It won't be resolved in two hours.

Make no mistake, bush will be the president and Ohio's votes will most likely be counted. The important issue is vote reform. The important issue is making sure that the parties know that they will no longer be able to steal elections with impunity. The challenge is the beginning of the process of reform.

[garybeck]

5. it's not just reform, it's setting the grounds for impeachment

it will take some time. but this is the beginning.

[Dinger]

13. Let it be, Let it be!!!

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaase!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[forgethell]

22. He can't be impeached

unless 1) he was personallly involved, or involved in a cover-up
2) We take back the House. Assuming these 2 conditions are met, he won't be convicted and removed from office unless 3) we win control of 2/3 of the Senate.

[euler]

26. Well, I've said the same, now...

...let's see if anyone cares when you say it.

[forgethell]

29. No, they won't.

There's no getting through to some people.

I guess some of us had rather live in an OZ of our own making than face the fact that we have 4 years of hard work ahead of us.

[forgethell]

23. He can't be impeached

unless 1) he was personallly involved, or involved in a cover-up
2) We take back the House. Assuming these 2 conditions are met, he won't be convicted and removed from office unless 3) we win control of 2/3 of the Senate.

[sepia_steel]

4. The important thing is awareness.

This will make history adn the media will have to cover it. After that, I would not be surprised to see him eventually impeached. All we can do is try.

[Maat]

6. I agree.

The important thing is awareness.

[judy]

8. I totally agree!

It is better to do something that fails than to do nothing!

If any one Senator (I won't hold my breath) were to stand and contest this election, not because of directed fraud necessarily, but because a log of thousands of glitches (the fact that they all favor Smirk might come up later) is unacceptable in a country that calls itself a model of democracy, it would be a sign that this Senator is putting the fate of the Country above his/her career. It would be unprecendented and great news to all of us NO MATTER WHAT the outcome is.

[Jersey Devil]

7. May be much less than 2 hrs since each has only 5 min to speak

You'd need 24 speakers to fill a full 2 hours at 5 minutes each (no repeat speakers allowed). That means 12 Dem Senators would have to speak and I doubt any will speak at all except those (if any) who are objecting. Of course the Repubs are allowed one half of the time anyway.

[tx_dem41]

10. Wow...talk about a small footnote in history. n/t

[righteous1]

9. Not only that, it's only going to be a voice vote from what I understand

[Walt Starr]

15. Yep

and no more than five minutes for any Senator to speak on the matter.

[arnp2000]

12. nope, it doesn't

trigger an investigation. It only puts things on hold for a couple of hours.

[Walt Starr]

14. Um...some of us have been saying this for a couple of weeks now

:shrug:

Sorry. Tried not to burst any bubbles too badly when I kept noting the political reality of the situation. I'm just sitting back shaking my head at the longterm issues we will encounter over this move.

This will be cited in 2008 when electoral votes are actually overturned and a Democrat who won the election loses the electiion all 100% within the rule of Chapter 3 of the United States Code and the United States Constitution. Remember, Republicans vote in lockstep and even if Democrats did on this one, we could not win.

Two hours, that's it. This will be the first time in history when an entire state's electors has been objected to. The only other objection to any elector was to a single faithless elector in 1969. That elector's vote stood as cast.

[theboss]

17. It's stunning how few people understand what's going on tomorrow

That's why I posted the thread asking if everyone understood that Bush was still going to be President.

I think that there is a "there" in Ohio; I don't think it would change the election but obviously it was a poorly-run election by a partisan hack in Blackwell. But I don't know if shooting our wad like this is the way to change things.

[stellanoir]

21. The number of irregularities

and blatant suppression of votes and discrepancies, in not only Ohio, but Florida, and New Mexico and many other places would suggest that there are several there's there.

Election reform and awareness are indeed key to us ever regaining a true representative legislature. Without that we have digressed back into a system of taxation without representation.

How can we possibly ever inspire democracies when we don't even embody one anymore?

Ughhhhh.

I appreciate all your thoughtful responses.

[Walt Starr]

24. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

There's a time and a place for everything. The joint session tomorrow is neither the time nor the placve and will have a detrimental effect overall. At least, IMO.

[AntiFascist]

58. I agree....

if it calls into question the legitimacy of the president, all the better.

[righteous1]

20. There definately could be a danger, they are celebrating

over in Freeperland. There take on it is it will do some long term damage to the credibility of the Dem party. They think a lot of Independents and middle of the roaders are going to be turned off by this move and that will translate in bigger margins for them in 06 and 08. I don't know what to think at the moment

[euler]

27. I agree,

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

30. Spare Me!

My take on this is we're SCREWED if we let them get away with something this evil and FRAUDulent. How many people were turned off by the fact Shrub was re-Selected?

When the Hell are we going to give up on the "undecided" independent voter. We got them, but their votes DIDN'T COUNT!

[Walt Starr]

31. Hmmmm, talk of recall

I wonder if it's even possible under the law to recall a Senator?

Maybe.

:scared:

Imagine Senator Bruce Willis from California....

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[theboss]

I think the recall laws only work for state officeholders in CA

I could be wrong, of course.

[Walt Starr]

49. Just checked, the statutes I can find specify

State and Local, so Boxer should be safe from recall.

[theboss]

32. I think the recall laws only work for state officeholders in CA

I could be wrong, of course.

[righteous1]

35. I wouldn't worry about that, she's safe. My concern is twofold:

What does this portend after this "Pandoras box" is opened and what affect is this going to have on the majority of the voting public. These type of things sometimes have a way of coming back to bite you in the a$$

[Walt Starr]

38. At this moment she's safe

What happens if the media rips her to shreds for two weeks over being a tinfoilhat conspiracy theorist? Could she still get one more vote than 50%?

Of course, that's assuming a Senator can actually be recalled.

[fasttense]

63. Yeah they always say that.

They think they can scare you into doing nothing.

[PaganPreacher]

16. Details are at:

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html

Synopsis:

Joint session of Congress meets at 1:00 pm on January 6. Sealed letters from each state's Electors are given to the President of the Senate at that time.

If a written objection to any slate of electors, signed by one Senator and one Representative, are presented to the President of the Senate, the houses separate (no debate in joint session).

Each house has 2 hours for debate, with no member having more than 5 minutes to speak. The debate must be limited to accepting or rejecting the official electoral votes from the challenged state, based on one specific criteria: If the electors were selected in accordance with state law for their state.

(There is more in the statute about a situation where two different sets of electors are submitted, but that does not apply to our situation).

At the end of the two hours, the houses vote to accept or reject the contested votes. Majority of both houses is necessary to reject the electoral votes.

If the challenge is rejected, the electoral votes are awarded as marked. If the challenge is accepted, the votes are removed from the total. At this point, there is some question: if the number of total votes for one candidate does not reach a majority of all "appointed" electors (to use the language of Article II of the Constitution), one of two things may happen.

1: The person with the highest total is elected (based on the position that rejected electors are not "appointed".)

2: The election moves to the houses of Congress (based on the position that 270 are necessary to win the electoral vote, even if some votes have been eliminated.)

Note: The question of which position is "correct" has not yet been defined by case law.

If the election goes to the Congress, the House votes on the President (with each state getting one vote), and the Senate votes on the Vice President (with each Senator getting one vote.)

The Pagan preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[tiptoe]

44. "Note: foreseeably, the only way to stop Bush is with the filibuster..."

from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x237709

Coalition Against Election Fraud (CAEF) Interested in Filibuster
Strategy

Sheila Parks of the Coalition Against Election Fraud (CAEF) contacted
activist on Sunday, January 2, 2005, with questions and interest
regarding the filibuster strategy against Ohio Electoral Ballots.

This strategy would have Senate Democratic leadership challenge, then
filibuster, the Ohio Electoral ballots. The authority for Senate to
do this is under own rule (Rule XXII) on debate. Since the U.S.
Senate would adjourn from the joint meeting with the U.S. House of
Representatives - in the event of a challenge; the U.S. Senate,
therefore, meets as the U.S. Senate itself. Thus, its Rule XXII
governs. Rule XXII applies as opposed to 3 U.S.C. 17; the Federal
statute states debate is limited to two hours. Rule XXII provides for
unlimited debate unless 60 Senators vote to end debate.

The U.S. Senate rules are granted by the U.S. Constitution: Article
I, Section 5, Clause 2. The U.S. Constitution trumps a Federal
statute. In short, 60 votes trumps two hours. Rule XXII applies to
any "...other matter pending before the U.S. Senate...." This
strategy would allow 45 Democratic Senators - if they stand firm - to
block Bush's election on January 6, 2005. Foreseeably, the filibuster
could be in effect for weeks - as long as it takes to resolve the
fiasco fairly in Ohio. This would prevent Bush from being inaugurated
on January 20, 2005. According to the plaintiffs in the case, the
amount of votes in dispute exceeds Bush's so-called "margin of
victory". In addition, the plaintiffs indicate Kerry is actually
leading in Ohio in a true, un-manipulated, un-suppressed, un-
fraudulent vote count.

Note: foreseeably, the only way to stop Bush is with the filibuster
strategy. If the U.S. Senate - and House of Representatives - both
vote on the Ohio Electors, the Republicans control both houses, and
by majority vote would approve the Ohio Electors - and Bush - as
President. The filibuster strategy would allow the U.S. Senate to
block the vote from occurring through unlimited debate - a
filibuster - until the fair resolution of the legal dispute noted
above.

CAEF is reviewing the strategy with its own legal team, and is
considering undertaking this strategy in lobbying efforts with the
U.S. Senate.

Sen. Reid, D-NV, and Sen. Corzine, D-NJ, Staff Reviewing Rule XXII in
Comparison with 3 U.S.C. 17 in Possible Consideration of Filibuster
Strategy

The Senate offices of Senators Reid and Corzine are aware of the
conflict between Rule XXII and 3 U.S.C. 17 when visited by activist
citizen today, January 3, 2005. The comparison of the statute and the
rule is part of the filibuster strategy outlined above. Apparently,
some U.S. Senate offices staff are looking at this comparison; this
could possibly indicate an initial review of the filibuster strategy
by Democratic Senators!!!

[Walt Starr]

66. Nope, filibuster only applies when a vote for cloture is required

A filibuster occurs when there are not enough votes to close debate in a situation where there is open ended debate.

Under Title 3, Chapter 1, § 17 of the United States Code, and I quote:

"When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate."

Debate is closed by statute, not by a vote to close debate by the Senate. A filibuster cannot occur because there is no vote to close debate under the law.

[PaganPreacher]

74. Forgot the "nuclear option?"

Frist can raise a rules change, if a Senator tries to filibuster. That would change the number of votes needed to override a filibuster from 60 to 51, immediately end the filibuster, and could affect the rest of the session.

That would put Dems in the position of having no filibuster power against judicial nominees, or civil-liberties restricting "security" legislation. It would also eliminate the #1 parlaimentary tool to stop Social Security privatization.

Wonder if it would be worth it, for a symbolic protest? You know what they say, "payback is a M*therf*cker".

He could also make a rules change, by simple majority vote, where the filibustering Senator has to speak continuously, 24 hours a day (no breaks, as is allowed now). That would preclude "weeks" of filibustering (and don't think that the Ohio lawsuits will be resolved in weeks.... lawyers are mighty good at delaying things when they want to.)

There is also a serious error in the premise: "the Constitution trumps the Federal Law."

It doesn't work like a game of cards, where the President of the Senate says "according to 3 USC 15, your five minutes are over," and the filibustering Senator says, "Oh, yeah? Well, according to the Constitution, I can filibuster, so sit down and shut up!", and a filibuster begins.

The courts can determine that a law is unconstitutional, but that happens after. Until the law was invoked, the Senator would have no cause of action. The Senator who was filibustering would have to file a lawsuit, alleging that the law is unconstitutional, and a court would have to rule in his favor. No matter the result, the case would be appealed, ultimately to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS ruled in the Senator's favor, THEN, the ruling would apply, but the presidential election would be over, by months, if not years, because the filibuster was prevented in the first place.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[forgethell]

19. If alll it took was

1 Senator and 1 Representative to stop the inauguration, no one would ever get inaugurated.

The election is over, and we lost.

[grumpy old fart]

45. The longest journey begins with a step......

No, a challenge tomorrow will reverse the election. It is, however, an historic and symbolic step toward a revealing the truth. Let the freepers call it what they want. We'll call it democracy. Let's get some balls here folks and stop letting the Rethugs tell us what is and isn't the right thing to do.

[forgethell]

59. I didn't say that

improving the election process isn't doable. I didn't say that the truth shouldn't come out. If * stole the election, we need to know. If a certain segment of the Democratic base is totally bonkers, we need to know that, too.

Let justice prevail, though the sky falls.

[euler]

25. It's been hashed, re-hashed, analyzed, poked...

...and prodded over the past few weeks here on DU. Your best bet may be the DU archives.

[WilliamPitt]

28. Oh for God's sake

Sorry to sound chippy, but how many damn times does this fact have to be repeated?

More to the point, how is it we can always find a way to piss on good news?

This is good news if we get it. It becomes a national story. A national dialogue on voting reform is initiated.

Jesus.

[Snivi Yllom]

36. assuming those asking for election reform are not branded as nuts

There is a 100% certainty that will happen. That's good news?

[cali]

39. What you see as good news

some of us view as potentially detrimental to the cause of election reform and to the dems. Things often get repeated ad nauseum here. I know you're aware of that.

[TayTay]

54. It is good news Will

But half of DU will be angry that Kerry isn't there to stand up and he will be villlified. (This is his fault?) Nobody seems to understand that he is both releveent and irrelevent to the fight. We need the publicity tomorrow will generate, but the fight is ongoing.

I would hope tha tthe next step is some sort of national hearings. Even unoffical ones. Maybe like what Sen. Reid promised the Sen. Dems would do to keep tabs on the Bushies.

Sigh!

[stellanoir]

70. Hey sorry

I was only seeking confirmation of the two hour debate rule, and silly me, (note the operative word "foolishly" in the original post ) I hadn't familiarized myself with this provision prior to hearing of it through the stupid MSM today.

I agree, the more overall media attention we can get for eventual national election reform, the better it is for the reinstitution of our democracy.

I just was surprisingly struck by how unbelievably inane and archaic this provision for the consequence of the controversy is.

And no, I've scoured lots of data about this and had honestly never come across this provision before.

Again, anything that contributes to greater awareness of the gross irregularities is a great thing.

So there.

Good luck down there.

[Mr.Green93]

33. We could start a filibuster

there is nothing to stop us.

[righteous1]

37. Now that I think is truly dangerous. We have already been a bit bruised

up over the judicial filibusters. You try and filibuster an entire election and most Americans will go ballistic. There is just no way to spin that favorably

[Walt Starr]

42. A filibuster CANNOT HAPPEN ON THIS!

Filibusters occur when there are not enough votes to close debate. Under Chapter 3 of the U.S. Code, the debate is limited in time by law. There cannot be a filibuster on this because of that fact.

[Walt Starr]

40. No filibuster under Chapter 3 of the U.S. Code

You cannot filibuster this as the law limits debate to two hours and a filibuster is what happens when there are not enough votes to close debate.

[righteous1]

46. Not neccessarily Senate rules contradict Federal statute

Senate rules are constitutionally guaranteed and therefor could supersede federal statute

[Walt Starr]

50. Nope, not in this case

Filibusters can only apply in open ended debate where a vote to close debate is required.

In this instance, there is no requirement for a closing of debate as the closing of debate is set in statute.

[righteous1]

56. I stand corrected n/t

[tiptoe]

64. Upon challenge by House & Senate, the joint session is adjourned...

"...the U.S. Senate,
therefore, meets as the U.S. Senate itself. Thus, its Rule XXII
governs. Rule XXII applies as opposed to 3 U.S.C. 17; the Federal
statute states debate is limited to two hours. Rule XXII provides for
unlimited debate unless 60 Senators vote to end debate."


CAEF is reviewing the strategy with its own legal team, and is
considering undertaking this strategy in lobbying efforts with the
U.S. Senate.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x237709

[righteous1]

69. OK so now I am confused....which is it???

[Walt Starr]

72. Sorry, but Rule XXII doesn't apply

The following is a requiremetn under Rule XXII:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?"

That question need not be asked in this case because the time limit is set in law. There is no requirement to vote on closing debate.

[forgethell]

68. That's crazy.

Senate rules CANNOT supersede LAW. Geez. by passing the law, the Senate consented for this to be part of Senate Rules for this issue.

[Mr.Green93]

60. There must be some maneuverer

the republicans are weak and divided. We can take them. They have no balls.

[Walt Starr]

62. Under the law, debate is limited to two hours

and no more than five minutes from any single Senator.

Don't like it? Too bad. You can push to change it for the next time but that's the law we operate under tomorrow.

[Karmadillo]

41. A lousy two hour debate

and its aftermath would do a hell of a lot more to advance the possibility of electoral reform than a lousy zero hour debate. We have to start fighting sometime and tomorrow is as good a day as any.

[Walt Starr]

43. Yeah, listening to the talk of Democrats being conspiracy theorists

for the next two years will do a LOT for election reform, like dumping it into the shitcan forever!

:eyes:

[Karmadillo]

47. Republicans and their media allies will do nothing on their own

to reform a system that clearly favors them. If you object to someone standing up tomorrow, what's your better idea?

[Walt Starr]

53. Push it everywhere and anywhere

except tomorrow when pushing it will cause disastrous harm and absolutely no good.

[stellanoir]

75. Walt, with all due respect

and appreciation for your extensive knowledge of the law, I truly think that with truth on our side, irreperable harm will not be done. Public awareness of the gross malfeasance resulting in electoral reform is our singular goal.

I don't feel like this will be like 2000 at all. The truth will come out over time. We just have to pay constant attention!

Thanks for all your wise responses.

[grumpy old fart]

48. The alternative? Just shut up about it?

Really. Do we just ignore this mounting problem?

[grumpy old fart]

51. So come on Walt, better ideas?

[Snivi Yllom]

52. by the time 2006 and 2008 rolls around

People are going to look back longingly at 2000, 2002 and 2004.

That's how much damage this could potentially do.

[Walt Starr]

55. 2008 we will probably win at the ballot box

and lose in the Congress.

:(

[grumpy old fart]

57. If this does damage to a sinking ship....so what?

Yeah, it'll damage the Dem image with all those red state ribbon covered SUV driving idiots who are gonna vote for a Rethug anyway. So what?

[Walt Starr]

61. Yes, and it will set a precedent that will be cited

in 2008 when a Democrat wins at the ballot box and a similar case is made to object in the joint session. Then, the Republicans vote in lock step, throw out the electors, and the Republican wins, all the while citing the precedent set by the Democrats in 2004.

and between now and then, no meaningful election reformn because the entire idea gets branded as "tinfoilhat conspiracy theory".

[Karmadillo]

65. I think you're wrong.

As passive as we've been the past several years, the actions you describe would meet with serious opposition. I doubt the Republicans' corporate puppeteers would allow them to take such a risky course. If they go ahead anyway, I like our chances in the streets.

[Snivi Yllom]

67. if you want to use the sinking ship analogy

I want to try to save the ship from sinking before it goes down in the middle of the ocean and eventually sail to port.

You want to scuttle the ship to make a bigger wave in the hopes you can surf to safety.

[stellanoir]

73. You're absolutely right

I was just sadly most clueless that there would be such limits to the repercussions of the protest.

Hopefully it'll lead to more. And something is indeed better than nothing.

[mdb]

71. Its actually not to exceed 2 hours in the debate. n/t