Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DJ MacWoW

I think so.

The Constitution does not address candidacy nuances prior to the actual EC vote (it’s all state issues prior), and federally Congress is not officially/formally notified of those candidates until the EC vote. The cases considered by SCOTUS so far demand delaying the EC vote so the state issues can be resolved - a grave act not to be done upone mere allegations of disqualification. Put coarsely: the Electoral College vote will not be delayed just because some state _might_ be stupid. There just isn’t enough evidence to mess with Congress’ edict that the EC shall vote on December 15th.

Even after the EC vote, I’m not sure SCOTUS can act until January 8. Examining the 12th Amendment, I see the votes are delivered _sealed_ to Congress - officially, nobody knows the votes until Dick Cheney himeself opens the envelopes, counts the votes, and declares a winner. Anyone bringing a challenge over the EC vote does not have standing to even know, officially, the outcome of that vote until then.

AFAIK, only the electors have standing to challenge O’s qualification, and that only between November 4 and December 15 (too late now). From December 15 to January 8, nobody has standing because officially nobody knows who won. On January 8, the first person to have standing is Dick Cheney (i.e.: current VP), who is the person who actually tallies the votes and would be in a position to question an Elector’s vote. Once the President Of The Senate (the current VP, Cheney) declares the winner (I anticipate O getting a majority vote, so other complications won’t happen), only then might the people at large have standing to challenge O’s qualifications.

So, upshot of my revised $0.02 opinion: the Supreme Court can, at this point (Dec 15, EC vote day), only take a case after January 8 as official federal notice of the outcome of the EC vote is only taken then.


18 posted on 12/15/2008 9:00:32 AM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: ctdonath2

There has been debate about what Constitutional remedies exist and when they can be used. I think you are right. And Berg’s case is still hanging around as it addresses a different issue. Fun to watch but not so fun to experience.


21 posted on 12/15/2008 9:04:48 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
After Jan 8th,

1. Can this case be reubmitted or

2. Does the SCOTUS have to wait for another case or

3. Could / Would SCOTUS take action on their own without a pending case before it?

29 posted on 12/15/2008 9:19:38 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (NO Kenyan Usurpers in the White House - NObama ! WE WILL TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Does that mean some one can sue Dick Cheney or Congress?


42 posted on 12/15/2008 9:53:15 AM PST by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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