Posted on 11/28/2008 12:57:36 PM PST by jay1949
Do they simply vote regardless if there was not a single “qualified” presidential candidate on the ballot? As Donofrio asserts in his Appeal. And can the USSC retrospectively call the election by the voting public null and void due to fraud?
Does it even matter that the Donofrio case was designed to “stay’ the election and was obstructed by judicial misconduct and obstruction by the USSC clerk until the election had passed?
Does that mean that anytime someone wants to have their way in the courts, they just wait out their opponent until the “judgment day” has passed? That hardly seems fair...
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
“There is an obvious remedy if they fail...”
- - -
So what is it that you propose?
“You can’t have your Democrat ticket disqualified and then just have the EC vote in another Democrat.”
Wishful thinking. First, the “ticket” won’t be disqualified; the “ticket” has no Constitutional significance. Second, the electors can vote for whom they please, whether or not a candidate is determined to be disqualified. Therefore, they can vote for whom they please if Obama is disqualified, and if they decide to vote for Hillary Clinton, there is nothing to be done about it.
The post-electoral college process is different. If the President-elect is disqualified, then Congress must choose a President from the other(s) who received electoral votes, up to a limit of three. If the electoral college vote goes as expected, that will leave only John McCain; if one of the electors casts a vote for Hillary Clinton, it will leave a choice between McCain and Clinton.
Excellent.
The Rule of Law may at times be frustrating, but it is preferable to all known alternatives; and what you say is the law as set forth in our Constitution.
Not unless they have an army to enforce their tyranny.
Wishful thinking!
When Obama is DQ’d, the EC will only have McCain to vote for since he is the only other candicate to recieve electoral votes. Thus, McCain wins 538 - 0.
If it gets to the stage where The House votes, they would only have McCain to vote for.
“what happens with those electors if the entire presidential election was faulty?”
If the electors were appointed (Constitutional terminology) in accordance with the laws of the states which they represent, then the election is not faulty, even if all nominated candidates are later disqualified. One of the purposes of the electoral college is to ensure the election of a President; they have the power to do that even if all candidates to whom they may have been pledged die or are determined to be unqualified.
“Do they simply vote regardless if there was not a single “qualified” presidential candidate on the ballot?” YES! That is exactly what they do.
“And can the USSC retrospectively call the election by the voting public null and void due to fraud?” No. The electoral process contemplates the possibility of fraud. The electors are free to choose another person who qualifies.
“In any event, expanding further the already grotesquely expanded power of SCOTUS was then, and still is, a bad idea.”
Absolutely correct!
The Court could (and in my opinion, should) conclude there is presently a remedy to the O eligibility issue clearly set out in the Consitution. It is to be found in the 20th amendment provision regarding Objections to the electoral vote on Jan 8, ‘09. It is not complicated language and demonstrates the founders and ratifiers were thinking ahead and knew what they werre doing. We should be so lucky! There is no Constitutional crisis. Unless the Dems refuse to honor that plain language.
Over the years the Court has taken it upon itself to become the unelected Supreme Legislature. Talk about becoming a nanny state!
STAND UP AMERICA! The presidential election is not over!
We voted for electors, not the individual candidates. The electors vote on or after December 15, 2009. The results are then presented to a joint session of Congress and objections may be heard on January 8, 2009 pursuant to the 20th amendment and Public Law 110-430. See the letter on my About page hand-delivered to the local offices of my Republican Senators and Representatives. I urge you to take similar action, even if it is simply faxing a one page letter to Washington, D.C.
Also, the 9 won’t touch it for separation of powers issues. Ith there were one less conservative they would, but not as currentlsy constituted.
Recommend you look at my #44 and give the 12th and 20th amendments some thought.
But I appreciate your passion on the issue.
So, what I understood Donofrio to say in his interview was incorrect.
Now, I can say with complete certainty that Biden won't be President unless OVER HALF OF THE ELECTORS ARE COMPLETELY INSANE!
You have no analysis. You are pimping someone else’s fatally flawed BS though.
“And now I’ve duplicated your link. Oy!”
As I said, you are among friends.
That's why this would be the mother of all constitutional crisis, no one has given a clear indication of what would happen if 'Bama had to step down; everyone has their own idea. I don't know if there would be a clear answer.. except I think the 5th should be days from now.
You said, “Not unless they have an army to enforce their tyranny.”
Give them a few years...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffltipFYy9M
“Now, I can say with complete certainty that Biden won’t be President unless OVER HALF OF THE ELECTORS ARE COMPLETELY INSANE!”
Correct but, unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t disqualify any otherwise eligible person simply because he’s a freaking idiot.
It occurs to me that Obama picked Biden as a disincentive to those who might question Obama’s eligibility.
pissant, pissant, pissant, pissant.
There! now your cognition level is pissant to the 4th degree!
So then, the electors can vote for ANYONE, even someone who never advanced to the level of the public election?
That’s rather frightening.
Does anyone have any idea how many electors are registered Democrats and how many are Republicans?
365 Democrats, 173 Republicans
You might be entirely correct. It seems that Obama has made a lot of preemptive moves.
He and Claire McCaskill were supposedly responsible for the unnecessary phrase in the “McCain is eligible to be President” bill........ as follows:
“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible.”
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
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.