Replies

Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law.

Well, I guess that makes the 2004 Election of President Bush invalid, since Vice President Cheney "failed" to call for objections during the Joint Session counting the electoral college vote for the 2004 Election.

Jan. 6, 2005 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (151 Cong. Rec. H84-06).

Jan. 8, 2009 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (155 Cong. Rec. H75-07).

Perhaps there is another reasonable reading of the requirement, "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any."

Given that objections must be submitted in writing and therefore are known before the actual session, perhaps Cheney interpreted the requirement to provide that he must call for objections ONLY IF there were any (which he would already know about, because they'd been submitted in writing, with signatures from at least on Senator and one HRep.)

I'm not saying that that is the "right" interpretation (although I suspect that it is). But consider whether that is a reasonable interpretation. If so, you can expect Cheney (and other Reps/Senators) to object to any discovery as irrelevant, because Plaintiff's interpretation of the LAW is incorrect. That is a question of law, not of fact, and discovery would not be permitted until that issue of law was resolved.

Stated another way, in order to obtain discovery (deposing all the Senators/Reps), the Plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that the law requiring the VP to call for objections IF ANY means that the VP must call for objections even if no written objections have been filed.

Again, I'm not saying that your interpretation of the requirement is "wrong." I'm merely saying that the issue is not clear, because there is at least one other reasonable interpretation of the requirement -- and discovery likely won't be granted until that legal issue is resolved.