Posted on 12/22/2008 10:05:22 AM PST by Kevmo
If we pepper certain senators & congressmen with phone calls, letters, email, it's going to get thru to them.letter/email or call remind them of 0's background, what kind of people he has surrounded himself with, what he wants to do to us--the compulsory work camps (illegal), the redistribution of wealth, the seizure of guns, his connections in Chicago.
The "election" was a coup. Notice how detractors who call themselves conservatives like to point out that 67 mil people voted for him. Do they consider how many of those votes were illegal? Foreign countries--you name them--are watching us with satisfaction, biding their time until they can walk in and take us over without firing a shot.
What about the election laws that were ignored because of cowardly officials? Notice how certain detractors like to tell us 0 got 67 mil. votes, but do they consider how many of those were multi registrations, aliens voting, dead; there was voter intimidation & precinct corruption, military ballots 'lost', uncounted???
Thanks for elaborating on my thoughts and lack of confidence in SCOTUS doing anything here. Cynicism based on past observation not trolling.
BTW what is a CoLB troll you were referring to?
Cynicism based on past observation not trolling.
***No, it isn’t. Recall what I said in post 16: “Now, let me be very straightforward here: I’m NOT calling you a troll.”
BTW what is a CoLB troll you were referring to?
***CoLB = Certificate of Live Birth, troll = troll... basically, there are a bunch of long term FReepers denigrating our efforts and I’m trying to understand it. Most CoLB trolls are obvious new sign-on date trolls from DU who tell us it’s time to move on, etc., being obvious in their trolldom. It’s the longterm CoLB FReepers who troll on these threads that are a mystery to me. You call it cynicism, and I agree; I’m even cynical myself. But these longterm cynicism CoLB Trolls seem to have jumped past cynicism and are actively seeing to hamper our efforts. They are being first class anal orifices.
Post 16: Can I ask you a question in the hopes you won’t get offended? I notice that there are a bunch of oldtimer FReeper CoLB trolls who seem to have the same level of no-confidence in SCOTUS. Now, let me be very straightforward here: I’m NOT calling you a troll. What I wonder is whether this lack of confidence is what causes the FReeper CoLB trolls to lash out at those who are slightly less cynical?
If there were a constitutional requirement for the office that a person release their financials, then there’d be a legitimate issue there. But there is no such requirement. That’s why Clintoon never released his medical records, and John F’n Kerry never released his form 180. There was no constitutional requirement. It’s a legitimate political issue but not a legitimate constitutional issue.
Fighting 4 is brave. Fighting 100 is foolish. Living in Nevada I do not play in fixed games. The game of politics is fixed. On guy standing up will do no good. After the Obama Security Force is put in there will be mass executions of patriots. Not interested in that game.
***I think I understand. The way I see it, right now there are 5 or 6 liberal justices that need to understand what kind of fight they are in. Fighting those 5 for justice is bravery, using your own analogy.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification and explanation.
There is also a case in the Washington State Supreme Court, Broe vs Reed, scheduled for January 8, 2009. Subpoenas have been served.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
The fix is in.
***You may be right, and I pray that you’re wrong.
Good summary. Thanks for posting it.
There are at least eight cases in which judges have ruled that candidates are disqualified from running. Two of those involved disqualified PRESIDENTIAL candidates.Sorry for taking a while to reply, I was out for Christmas.
Article II, Section 1 says that the states can appoint their delegates to the Electoral College in whatever way they want.
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.But on what constitutional basis could the vote of these electors be revoked once cast?
I can see how the states could punish officials who mismanaged the process of selecting the electors or punish electors who did not vote as "directed". I just don't see how the electors votes could be changed once the electors have been certified and their votes cast.
Also, the Constitution makes no mention of the Supreme Court having any role in managing the Electoral College or approving of it's results.
Do you have any cases or legal research that address either of these points?
ping
But on what constitutional basis could the vote of these electors be revoked once cast?
***The 20th Amendment. It clearly subordinates electoral and public votes to the eligibility of the president elect.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,740+ views
The 20th Amendment. It clearly subordinates electoral and public votes to the eligibility of the president elect.The rest of that paragraph is important also.
... or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.If no president-elect qualifies then the vp-elect acts as president. If neither of them qualify then Congress and not the Supreme Court gets to resolve the situation.
The eight cases I referenced, exist and say what I cite them for.
I am hoping to find lawyers who know how to research the law. I am dispairing of finding some.
John / Billybob
Electoral College votes cannot be “redirected.” However, they can be freed from casting an illegal vote.Right, electors are not constitutionally bound to vote for anyone. If they had become convinced the "winner" of the November election was the wrong person for the job for whatever reason they could simply voted for someone else. In this sense they weren't "freed", they were always "free".
But once the electoral votes have been cast (as is now the case) how can they be recalled. This is no longer a case of access to state ballots in the November election. That ship has already sailed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.