Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: IrishCatholic

This makes for interesting reading:

Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.

The Justices denied the “stay’ but have retained the “certori.” It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College “elects” him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.

Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.

Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.

Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.

The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.

Only one senator AND only one representative — so start writing yours today! — Use this chart (see link below) and associated info in your message to those folks.

http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart.htm


11 posted on 12/15/2008 4:52:51 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: SatinDoll
Well, DAY AM!, girl .. why have I never heard nor read that before?

If what you say is true, we just have to sit on our hands and hope it goes our way?

Is there any reason to believe there's a sen and a rep and even the court will challenge all this?

Do I dare have hope?

42 posted on 12/15/2008 6:11:04 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll

Thanks for that info.


44 posted on 12/15/2008 6:17:34 PM PST by Coachm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll

Excellent post. Thank you.


46 posted on 12/15/2008 6:22:28 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll; All
(The following has no paragraph breaks in the law. I added some for easier reading)

3 USC 15:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. 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, an ssuch 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.

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

48 posted on 12/15/2008 6:28:25 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll

Interesting, and I’m bookmarking it.

Dont know why the talk heavies havent indulged the BC issue. Part of it is they dont want to jump on the wagon before the SCOTUS agrees to do something affirmatively about it. If that ever happens, I’d expect they’d state why they hadnt spoken about it until then.

Also, it is possible that this just isnt a big deal to them in the context of the election results, and before anyone flames that, consider- did the DOJ properly police Acorn during the campaign? Are the borders being properly guarded? Are illegals being deported? Is franken trying to steal the election? Did the dems lie about who is responsible for the F&F fraud and subsequent financial meltdown? Why is there no outcry about millions of $ earmarked for Acorn in the bailout? Why arent Odumbo’s illegal campaign contributions coming under scrutiny? what about the $800,000 he gave to an Acorn subsidiary?

Why arent the talkies going on about all those transgressions?

Why arent people shouring about it all from the rooftops?

I dunno...


78 posted on 12/18/2008 4:50:09 PM PST by Canedawg ("The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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