Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Electoral College Vote (No Mention of Objections?)
CSPN ^ | 1/4/2012 | CSPN

Posted on 01/04/2013 11:17:18 AM PST by research99

The Electoral College vote was just completed in Congress, following results of the 2012 election.

It is available at CSPN's video library page Unlike the reading in prior years, there was no call for objections from VP Joe Biden at the podium!

(About 20:00 in, is when objections could have been heard)

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Countin


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2013; birthers; electoralcollege
Unlike the reading in prior years, today there was no call for objections from VP Joe Biden at the podium. Did Biden want to avoid a possible objection regarding Obama's suppression and forgery of documents pertaining to his actual citizenship status.
1 posted on 01/04/2013 11:17:27 AM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: research99

There are not usually calls for objections. The statute says that objections must be made in writing, before the count, and must be signed by one Representative and one Senator. The only times the Vice President calls for objections is when a written objection by one Representative and one Senator is on file.


2 posted on 01/04/2013 11:28:12 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Is there any chance to raise objections -of any sort- from after the voting today till January 20th?


3 posted on 01/04/2013 11:37:55 AM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

In January 2001, there was an objection by a House member which was responded to by Gore. This was shown in one of the Michael Moore films a few years ago.

In January 2005, there was an objection to the Ohio votes which was sponsored by Senator Boxer and responded to by Cheney, and it obligated the House to a discussion and separate vote.

So are we to conclude that in January 2013, in spite of notifications sent to representatives in Congress (with supporting documentation acquired in the past 4 years) every single member of the entire House and entire Senate caved in?


4 posted on 01/04/2013 11:44:52 AM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: research99
So are we to conclude that in January 2013, in spite of notifications sent to representatives in Congress (with supporting documentation acquired in the past 4 years) every single member of the entire House and entire Senate caved in?

So far as appears, not one Representative or Senator objected.

5 posted on 01/04/2013 11:51:18 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: research99

Unmanly orifices will pretend no question of cheating existed. Republicans need to go.


6 posted on 01/04/2013 11:55:37 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

So it’s official.

We are a tribal nation led by a group of sheep, instead of being ruled by law.

What was the point of all those men dying in battle since 1789?


7 posted on 01/04/2013 12:27:41 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: research99

is there anything remaining in the workings of this obozo government that is Constitutionally legitimate?


8 posted on 01/04/2013 12:30:44 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: research99

Never fear.

These silent Republicans of today will lead the charge and hold the line on the debt ceiling, impose a fiscally sound 2014 budget, and protect our 2nd Amendment rights.

You betcha.


9 posted on 01/04/2013 12:32:11 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“The statute says that objections must be made in writing, before the count, and must be signed by one Representative and one Senator.”

More Obot misinformation.

The statute says the President of the Senate shall call for objections after the electoral votes have been read aloud and counted. The electoral votes are sealed prior to the reading and counting. How would one one Representative and one Senator know they were going to object before the sealed votes were unsealed and read aloud?

The statutue continues with language that says an objection must be in writing and will not contain argument. The only way for a Rep or Senator to know if they objected to the electoral vote count was to hear the count because the votes are sealed prior to that.

The Electoral Vote is null and void because Slo-Joe screwed the pooch.


10 posted on 01/04/2013 12:33:45 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exit82

Is it being advocated that we put our faith on a House still being led by John Boehner?

Gold, Guns and Food seem a better bet.


11 posted on 01/04/2013 12:39:50 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: research99
The Dems beat the Electoral College...using demographics.

Look at the map and the numbers....the Unions, the blacks, the hispanics...

We got scr****.

I also believe their was "coordinated" cheating.

12 posted on 01/04/2013 12:40:52 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
"The statute says the President of the Senate shall call for objections after the electoral votes have been read aloud and counted."

Which statute number and source says that?

13 posted on 01/04/2013 12:44:38 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Not one Senator in the crowd would have had the testicular courage to object anyway so why ask?

I swear I will not be a Republican for the next eelction, I am just waiting to see what the Tea party does before I go Independent.


14 posted on 01/04/2013 12:46:59 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: research99
3 U.S.C. 15, as reprinted online:

"The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses."

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any."

"Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified..."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

15 posted on 01/04/2013 12:49:12 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: research99

I suppose it is up to us and the current crop of warriors, some still fighting in the sandbox.


16 posted on 01/04/2013 12:50:06 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: research99
After reading 3 U.S.C. 15, can we conclude, VP Joe Biden violated the law today? And if so, is the vote valid?
17 posted on 01/04/2013 12:51:00 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: research99

Scroll down to Sec. 15 and it discusses the procedure.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#law


18 posted on 01/04/2013 12:55:16 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: research99

The audio on CSPN dropped out for a full 3 seconds (at about 23:30 in), right when Biden was legally obligated to ask for “objections” per 3 U.S.C. 15. Was anything said in that time?

Could VP Biden have mentioned “objections” off-mic, in a voice only heard by someone standing next to him?


19 posted on 01/04/2013 1:05:57 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: research99

“And if so, is the vote valid?”

It’s voidable. The law is clear. A call for objections to vote count should have been made after the Electoral Votes were unsealed and read aloud.

A call for objections to vote count was not made and a cloud of uncertainty of an Obama Presidency continues.


20 posted on 01/04/2013 1:06:17 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

What is the proper legal procedure if one were to attempt a legal challenge to today’s session?

Would it be through the courts, and if so what district has jurisdiction?

Or if it could be through Congress, which house, committee or member would perform it?


21 posted on 01/04/2013 1:26:11 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: research99

U.S. District Court DC

TRO and then a Writ of Mandamus to fully qualify Obama. I’d start with a subpoena to NARA for Obama’s complete INS file.


22 posted on 01/04/2013 1:32:31 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Would the TRO be to enjoin Supreme Court Justice Rogers from administering the oath of office on Jan 20th?

And if so, would it be based on Congress’ failure today to request objections as required by 3 U.S.C. 15 or for failure to verify a candidate’s eligibility per Article 2, Section1 of the Constitution, or for something else?

Would that be a “Writ of Mandamus”? Could Montgomery Sibley file that (as he is currently involved in a similar case)?

Or would this be a “Quo Warranto” cause of action (which Sibley is now involved in)?


23 posted on 01/04/2013 1:40:49 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: research99

SC CJ Roberts is subject to a restraining order like any other citizen. A lawsuit would probably be dismissed for standing unless it was filed by a Prez candidate or Member of Congress.


24 posted on 01/04/2013 1:57:45 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: research99

Bookmarked.


25 posted on 01/04/2013 2:04:27 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“Standing” has been used to toss suits of this nature out of court. “Injury” arising from an ineligible chief federal officer is a high burden to show, as Terry Lakin and others have learned to their regret.


26 posted on 01/04/2013 2:05:34 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: research99

cheney never called for objections in 2008. I remember that is when many online were discussing it. I was so mad. this time around - i pretty much expected more of the same.


27 posted on 01/04/2013 2:50:38 PM PST by freeB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeB

There were blog posts about how VP Dick Cheney also violated the law by not asking for objections in 2009.

If today’s inaction was done in concert with the 2009 procedure, would that amount to a conspiracy itself (to violate 3 U.S.C. 15)?

http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/dick-cheney-broke-the-law/

Another blog included a link to a YouTube video of the 2009 vote reading:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BcGt8hQZzg4


28 posted on 01/04/2013 2:59:01 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: research99

There were posts on FR live as it happened in 2009
(”objections” not being mentioned from post #59 an on).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160895/posts?q=1&;page=51


29 posted on 01/04/2013 3:02:51 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2974657/posts?q=1&;page=163#163

#163


30 posted on 01/04/2013 4:03:47 PM PST by patriot08 (NATIVE TEXAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: research99; Lurking Libertarian; SvenMagnussen

In 1997, Gore did not call for objections.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CollegeB

In 2001, Gore called for objections after each state’s vote count. While several representatives raised objections to Florida’s count, they did not have any Senator cosponsors and were not allowed to make their objections.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/161423-1

In 2005, Cheney did not call for objections. Rep. Tubbs-Jones stood up and was recognized by Cheney after Ohio votes were read.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BallotCoun

In 2009, Cheney did not call for objections,

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CountC

The law reads:

“Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.”

The language suggest that after each state’s votes are read, there is a call for objections “if any”. That suggests that they know when objections are going to be made ahead of time. If they know there will be know objections they just read the votes.


31 posted on 01/04/2013 6:34:51 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

“If they know there will be know objections they just read the votes.”

Duh ...

If they know there will be no objections, they just read the votes.


32 posted on 01/04/2013 6:38:07 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

The records are sealed and unavailable for examination prior to the count. How would two members of Congress know what to object to if the vote tally is sealed until they are read out loud?

And if the members of Congress are expected to know the contents of the sealed envelopes prior to the reading of the contents of the envelopes, then why bother reading the vote tally out loud. The President of the Senate could simply announce, “You know the contents of the sealed envelopes in this sealed box and did not write any objections. So, let’s dispense with the reading of vote tally and declare a winner.”


33 posted on 01/05/2013 6:45:02 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

sfl


34 posted on 01/05/2013 8:02:05 AM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

They could go to the National Archives website that posted the EC votes for each state as they came in to NARA. They posted images of each state’s Certificates of Votes shortly after December 17th.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012/certificates-of-vote.html

“Certificates will be posted as they are received and verified for completeness and accuracy. If you don’t see your state listed yet, check back later. Certificates of Vote will not be available until sometime after the Electors meet and vote on December 17, 2012.”

Here is Ohio’s posted about the 18th.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-ohio.pdf


35 posted on 01/05/2013 11:31:28 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson