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

[Imagevision]

<snip> {Posted earlier By 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the U.S. Constitution -- not the laws of the federal government or the laws of the state government, both of which are superseded by the U.S. Constitution.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.

[KatieB]

1. Good analysis

[VoteJohn04_com]

2. I agree

http://www.stolenvotes.org

I completely agree! I don't think that
there should be this huge burden of proof
to show that the Electors from Ohio are
illegitimate.

There IS proof--and I think it's MORE than
enough to suggest that they CANNOT accept
those totals. Plus, add to that the trouble
in New Mexico, Florida, and elsewhere...

I find little way that one can be justified
in trusting that this election was legitimate
at ALL! If there have been so many problems
in the Blue states and Places where Kerry
was expected to win, what about places that
he was EXPECTED to Lose?! (Texas for example)

How easy is it to steal a few thousand votes
here or there when they are EXPECTING Bush to
win since it's a Red State etc?! Nobody is
watching...nobody would question it.

This vote NEEDS to be Contested! I believe
it will--I hope it may change the "official tally"
(If one can even say that with a straight face
at this point.)

http://www.stolenvotes.org

[Moderator]

3. Locking as duplicate

Please conitnue discussion here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=244396&mesg_id=244396