Electoral College Vote (No Mention of Objections?)

CSPN ^ | 1/4/2012 | CSPN

[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

[research99]

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?

[SvenMagnussen]

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.

[research99]

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)?

[SvenMagnussen]

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.

[Graewoulf]

Bookmarked.

[research99]

“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.

[freeB]

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.

[research99]

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

[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

[patriot08]

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

#163

[4Zoltan]

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.

[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.

[SvenMagnussen]

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.”

[phockthis]

sfl

[4Zoltan]

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