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.
A controversy which threatened the peace of the country arose in 1876 respecting the electoral vote for Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican candidate for the presidency, and that cast for Samuel J. Tilden, the nominee of the Democratic party. In Louisiana two electoral returns were made under rivals claiming to be governor. The legality of the returns made in some other States to the president of the Senate also was questioned. The claim was made that the president of the Senate (who was then a Republican) should, under this clause, do the counting. On many points the disagreement between the partisans was so wide and apparently so hopeless that it was finally determined to Ieave all questions to an Electoral Commission to be created by act of Congress and to consist of five members of the Senate, five members of the House and five justices of the Supreme Court. That Commission, after an extended hearing of evidence and argument found by a strictly partisan vote, that 185 electoral votes belonged to Hayes and 184 to Tilden.
To prevent the recurrence of some of the questions, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of February 3, 1887, providing (1) that if there has been in a State a final determination of any electoral controversy, the Governor shall certify the decision to the Secretary of State, who shall transmit the information to the first meeting of Congress; (2) that if more than one return of vote should be made by a State to the president of the Senate, that one shall be counted which was delivered by the regular electors; (3} that when the question is which of two election boards in a State is regular, that one will be recognized which the Senate and the House decide to be the one authorized by law, (4) but if the Houses disagree, then the electors certified by the Governor of the State shall be accepted; (5) that Congress shall sit in joint session in the House of Representatives at one o'clock in the afternoon of the second Wednesday in February following the meeting of electors; (6) that there shall be two tellers for the Senate and two for the House, who shall receive from the president of the Senate the election returns from each State as he opens them in alphabetical order and who shall read the returns in the hearing of the joint session and make lists of the results and give them to the president of the Senate for announcement; (7) and that the president of the Senate shall call for objections in writing of any State for consideration by each House.
Next Saturday George Dubya Bush will be the uncontested President-elect.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
Please write the Secretary of State Katherine Harris at FAX # 850-487-2214.
Government broke down in the middle of nowhere?? Call Triple "F"!!! (Faxes From FReepers) We (all of us Freepers) can put our opinion on a real piece of paper that can't be "clicked" away and ignored like an Email. We can do it for FREE on line right from our PC's. No down loads, fax machines or technical skills required.
Just click here"FREEPERS FAX FREELY"
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
bump
bump
Government broke down in the middle of nowhere?? Call Triple "F"!!! (Faxes From FReepers) We (all of us Freepers) can put our opinion on a real piece of paper that can't be "clicked" away and ignored like an Email.
We can do it for FREE on line right from our PC's. No down loads, fax machines or technical skills required.It even includes a list of HUNDREDS of very important and hard to come by Fax #'s that you will just love to have!!
Just click here"FREEPERS FAX FREELY"
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
If you monitoring this thread help me out here. How does the Electorial Count Act and your conclusion tie together? The Act seems to deal with a situation when 2 sets of electors are sent to Congress. Help me here!!!!!
Thanks so much for posting this!!
As I said on another thread -- that they Democrats will probably find, decern, or outright manufacture enough votes by Dec 1 to have more than Bush . But it is all after the counting should have stopped.
Wouldn't this force the counts to revert to earlier dates?
I wanted to alert folks to this article from the LATIMES since I agreed with its contents - doesn't happen often.
Here is a Link to an article from the LATimes, via DRUDGE:
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court argument next week over Florida's ballots will focus almost entirely on a federal law--apparently never used in the 113 years it has been on the books--that forbids states to decide presidential elections based on rules adopted after the voting.
Lawyers for Texas Gov. George W. Bush had advanced grand constitutional arguments against the hand recounting of Florida's votes. But the justices turned away those claims in their brief order Friday announcing that they would take the case next week. Instead, the justices said they would consider whether the Florida Supreme Court's decision to require that recount results be included in the state's vote totals violated the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
For the rest of the Article refer to the above Link!! Notice that I have not posted the entire article and have set a LINK to the article!!
A very encourgaging article !!
This is what I don't understand. The statue doesn't really talk about voting by the people, it talks about the electoral college and says rules have to be made 6 days before the electors meet. To apply this to the day of election seems to be a leap based on my reading of the statute. I hope someone knows something I don't
bttt
Excellent!
I am getting my information from the Detroit News.
I see this article is available here:
Court's decision to look at law bodes ill for Democrats
Same authors:
" That law requires that "any controversy or contest" concerning the naming of members of the electoral college must be decided based on "laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors."
Now we will have to search for the statute defining this date. (I forsee more lawsuits! GROAN!)
Jen
All you have to know about this act to know how the court will rule is that it forbids states from deciding presidential elections based on rules adopted after the voting.
I think I wuv you!
BTTT!!!
Here is what I am refering to: title 3 section 5:
Sec. 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
It seems to be talking about the votes of the electors, not the national or state vote. They seem to be using the statue very liberally. I don't see mention of having to inact the law before election day.
Maybe they are going to legistate from the bench to clear up some grey areas in an OLD LAW!!!
LOL!!
bttt
please help - I can't find the statute itself - were is it. All the links just seem to lead to stories and analyses but no statute or 'Act'.
It doesn't appear obvious how they will rule based on this law. The law says elections will not be decided based on laws enacted after the election. The Dems will argue that it was not a law enacted after the election; it was a statute interpreted after an election, which would be lawful. Also, there is a line in the law which provides for judicial means of resolving conrtoversies. So, I dunno. With lawyers, how the hell can you ever know what will happen? Fingers crossed though.
It's exciting to watch the Democrats steal votes on live TV, but it doesn't matter.
The Florida Legislature will appoint the Electors for Bush. There is no other way now, unless Gore concedes, and who expects that?
No matter who wins or loses the hand recounts, it will be a contested election.
We win.
} that when the question is which of two election boards in a State is regular, that one will be recognized which the Senate and the House decide to be the one authorized by law,
Not until January or later will this be settled. There is some chance in the Senate this could get tossed back to Jeb bush. The Dems would love that, because they are planning to retake Congress in 2002 and 2004 on the platform of 'Congress robbed the citizens of their choice." It's a strong platform in that it is a very simple one.
There is also precedent for one side selling out the other by bribing off a few key Congressmen. This is easy to do when control of the Senate and the House may hang in the balance. Watch your back at all times. It has happened before.
Thanks a lot deport for this flag for this informative post!
Sorry it took me so long. I took a break from my computer. If you are still watching your replies, you can find the statute in the Bush petition to the supreme court. You might like to read the whole thing. It is very encouraging. The law in on our side. It is the first one at the top of the list.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00836-1a.fdf
Also, you can find the full US Code at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
And the statute
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.text.html
thanks much. I will take a look. I couldn't find it anywhere, congress Thomas, , library of congess, in fact I couldn't find a link to the US supreme court. Strange, my search engines normally do pretty well.
Do you have a ussc link?
Actually, I had the worst time finding the surpreme court web site. I finally had to dig through the house of representitives page several layers before I found the link
Just by way of example,let me give you this link to a brief filed by the Attorney General of Alabama. It is Roe V. Alabama and it hits some of this issue. And even though the lower court (US Court of Appeals, 11th circuit, under Justice Kennedy, SCOTUS) made the ruling, it will show you a more recent incidence of a ruling which would favor Dubya. Read it, relax!
AG Alabama Amicus Brief to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
She knows. Calm down.
Looks like you're right; that GW will be President, as long as Jeb Bush is still Governor for the purpose of certifying the election. Is he still recused? And, if so, who is the Governor in his stead? Butterworth?
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior...
The only ENACTED Laws in Florida to appoint electors state, in part, that the dang returns had to be in by 5 pm the 7th day post election. Not one thing that Kangaroo Court in Florida did can ever amount to an enacted law. Only the legislature can enact laws.
The Election Canvassing Commission is the official certifier of election results. It is made up of the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, Bob Crawford, her assistant (a democrat), and a substitution that took over when Jeb Bush recused himself. The only role the Governor has is when they meet in the legislature and he puts his seal on the deal (certificates of ascertainment). His Lt Gov can do that.
See this about the Gov's role also found at Electoral College Homepage:
"...The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties. State laws vary on the appointment of electors. The States prepare a list of the slate of electors for the candidate who receives the most popular votes on a Certificate of Ascertainment. The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment. The States send one original, along with two authenticated copies or two additional originals to the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) by registered mail, which must be received by the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 18, 2000). The Archivist transmits the originals to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR forwards one copy to each House of Congress and retains the original..."
Thanks...I will read that. I think we finally have them on the run.
Looks like bush just might pull it off tomorrow, but then again it has been weeks and weeks of me thinking bush might finally pull it out, yet gore continues to hang in there. I can imagine another election night last minute numbers spike for al gore. I was up all night watching that. But if we don't get it tomorrow I think the legislature will step in and if that fails I am feeling good about what the US Supreme Court might do.
Gore reminds me of Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction." Just when you think she's finally out of the picture, there she is scaring the he!! out of everybody.
Thanks much to both of you for your help.
Reminds me we need something like an old football cheer -
"Hit EM again, Harder, Harder"
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |