Posted on 11/28/2008 6:26:06 PM PST by newbie2008
ST. PAUL - Hours after the Franken campaign failed to convince the Minnesota State Canvassing Board to intervene on its behalf, Senate President Harry Reid (D-Nev) supported Franken's attorney's statement that they are prepared to take the Minnesota election to the U.S. Senate for a decision.
According to comments published by Talking Points Memo, Franken's lead recount attorney, Marc Elias, said:
"There are a number of ways this can happen, whether it is at the county level, before the state canvassing board, before the courts of Minnesota, or before the United States Senate, we do not know," said Elias -- but they will see to it that every vote is counted."
Later Wednesday afternoon, Reid opened the door for Senate intervention into the Minnesota election processing, saying: "Today's decision by the Minnesota Canvassing Board not to count certain absentee ballots is cause for great concern." Reid made the statement in a release from his official U.S. Senate office.
Coleman Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan responded:
"This is a stunning admission by the Franken campaign that they are willing to take this process away from Minnesotans if they fail to win the recount. It is even more stunning that the Democratic Senate leader would inject himself into the Minnesota election process. This says that Franken is fully prepared and armed to take this matter to the United States Senate and that the Senate will be receptive - even if Franken fails to succeed in winning the recount. This is a troubling new development. We call upon Al Franken to personally disavow his attorney's comments, and to commit to Minnesotans that he will not allow this election to be overturned by the leadership of the Democratic Senate. Al Franken owes it to the people of this state to reject any and all efforts to stop a Minnesota Senator from being sworn in on January 6th if Norm Coleman continues to be shown to have won this election after the recount."
The question is whether each house of Congress has the right to interfere with an election and its decided winner, or whether they are limited to accepting or keeping the candidate/incumbent who has been elected/reelected.
The Democrats kept Gary Studds after revelations about his homosexual activities with a page (reelected 5 times afterwards); kept Barney Frank for allowing homosexual activities in his house; kept impeached judge Alcee Hastings as a member of Congress; kept indicted & reelected Rep. William Jefferson despite the serious charges against him - the indictments spell it all out); kept Sen. Ted Kennedy after his lying and coverup of Chappaquidick and the negligent death of Mary Jo Kopechne; have kept and promoted Soviet-aligned communists in Congress such as George Crockett Jr and John Conyers Jr; kept secrets leakers Rep. Michael Harrington and Rep. Robert Drinan, Sen. Rockefeller and Leahy; and possible illegal contacts between Sen. Ted Kennedy and the KGB/CPSU (ala Paul Kengor’s revelations/documents). Therefore, why should Reid not interference in a Senatorial election though he may have no standing to do so.
The Democrats have no regard for the law, for the public, or for the concept of honest politics.
Just as you can trust a communist to be a communist, you can trust a Democrat to be a Democract, or am I being redundant?
-PJ
You nailed it exactly right!
Political coup by Harry Reid.
If the state declares Coleman the winner, Reid cannot declare Franken the winner; Reid can only refuse to seat Coleman.
If that were to happen, I guess it would go back to the state, where the governor would appoint someone.
-PJ
Americans hate losers, but sore losers are reviled.
ABSOFUKINGLUTLEY!!!
That's the strategy Coleman should take, if he wins the recount.
Then, REFUSE to leave the Senate and challenge Dingy Harry to try and forcibly remove him.
Even the Lame Stream Media could not avoid covering that fiasco.
By the way, does anyone know if its a simple majority, or 2/3 vote requirement and does a filibuster rule?
looks like frankenstein thinks he has a right to win,
whether the voters agree or not.
You’re wrong. The House declared a Democrat the winner in an Indiana House race back in the 80s even though Indiana had declared the Republican the winner by a handful of votes. There is no formal appeal for this as each house of Congress has the final say on its membership. It’s just a matter of how much bad PR they are willing to take. Granted how few recall that Indiana theft, not to mention that Washington state rewarded the theft of their Governorship with reelection Reid may judge he can get away with such a coup.
It's simple majority, although I don't know whether it can be filibustered.
Article 1; Sec. 5, US Constitution:
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
This is just another reason to repeal the 17th amendment and let the state legislatures send the Senator of their choice to Washington.
-PJ
Doesn’t Reid actually mean, “we are prepared to steal the election right in the open through the Democrat Senate?”
Do we even have a constitution any more?
What needs to be enacted is a provision in campaign law that a candidate must meet a 51 percent threshold or there will be a mandatory run off election.
Ballot counts this close should be considered a tie requiring a run off election.
We can probably be sure that McNutjob, Linsey Graham and Olympia Snow, among others, are more than prepared to collaborate - I mean cooperate - with Reid and the Dems.
Exactly, as if boxes of ballots, EVERY BALLOT cast in MN will arrive at the Senate chambers, along with a Rep for the MN Board of Canvassing to explain MN election law for the counting of ballots..
Bush v Gore, you cannot treat ballots differently, to do so violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, each Ballot will have to be recounted and even then, it must be done under MN Law...that doesn’t seem probable...
What a load of crap.
This is the price you pay when the majority of voters are idiots, illegals, and welfare recipients. Better get used to it, they’re the majority now and for years and years to come.
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.