Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
Shall be President. That part is very clear and it means that Obama IS President. Now I know that folks in this debate are fond of quoting their favorite parts of the Constitution, but somehow this bit continues to elude their diligent research. If Obama is ineligible for the office, then evidence will have to be produced and impeachment proceedings must follow. Since the evidence, if it ever existed, was flushed down the memory hole by Obama's goons; and the Congress is unlikely to ever bring impeachment charges, this issue is deader than the Cubs chances of winning the 2010 World Series.
He is the President and has been since the day he was sworn into office. Should he commit a crime, then the remedy is impeachment, not military coup. If he has already committed a crime by fraudulently representing that he was eligible for the Office of President, then once again, the remedy is impeachment. All of the other arguments fail to take into account the consequences of the 12th Amendment. Its that pesky Constitution thingy.
“One of those laws says that in carrying out the 12th Amendment (which you cited) the VP has to ask if there are any objections to the electoral vote count. Dick Cheney never did that. “
The objections must be made in writing. Having received no written objection, Cheney didn’t NEED to call for verbal ones...but are you suggesting someone HAD an objection, and couldn’t make it? Or that Congress doesn’t know what they meant in their law, or have the authority to change their own procedures?
“Since the mid-20th century, on January 6 at 1:00 pm before a Joint Session of Congress, the Vice President opens the votes from each state in alphabetical order.5 He passes the votes to four tellers—two from the House and two from the Senate—who announce the results. House tellers include one Representative from each party and are appointed by the Speaker. At the end of the count, the Vice President then declares the name of the next President.6
During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.7”
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/electoral.html
Also see
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143510,00.html
I disagree. How can deliberately disobeying the orders of his superior officers possibly be defined as well and faithfully discharging the duties of the office on which Lakin entered?
There you go again, bringing facts to the discussion. Inconvenient ones, too.
The nephew who was commissioned last spring is my godson. With our gift to him I wrote him a note saying that I believe this to be an incredibly difficult time to make and keep the oath he was making but that I leave him to the care of the Lord, who will give him wisdom and strength to do what is right.
Sent him off to Quantico shortly after that, right after I had heard from Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email that she had been wrangling with Quantico over their constant attempts to hack the P&E site.
I don’t cry easily (depending on the time of the month. lol) but the thought of him going someplace where he could be ordered to try to undo everything I have been working on out of my respect and love for this country and its Constitution was a bit much to take.
I had spoken with him a couple years earlier about the military and why he likes it. He talked about how apolitical it is. I let it pass at the time, figuring he’d learn all too soon.
I had just done research into how Able Danger had been snuffed because in addition to identifying a potential AQ cell centered out of Brooklyn and headed by Mohammad Atta it had uncovered suspicious activity at Stanford University involving SecDef William Perry - whose own company, it was later revealed, had sold forbidden encrypted satellite technology to a Chinese front company he knew was owned by the Chinese military leader’s wife. All the actionable intel on Atta’s AQ cell was destroyed because Perry didn’t want anybody thinking Able Danger was credible, since that could lead to an investigation of Able Danger’s other findings.
Able Danger was started by the military shortly after Congress had issued the Thompson Report recommending that the DOJ investigate the role of Chinese front companies in getting forbidden technology from the US government. Janet Reno refused to investigate, in spite of pressure from Congress, so Able Danger (as I understand it) was the military’s response in order to try to protect our technology.
It did perfectly what it was supposed to do on the Chinese front company issue as well as on the terrorism issue, and because of that it was disbanded and the members eventually gagged. Because the person in charge of the military (SecDef Perry) was the crook who needed his a$$ covered. The fox guarding the henhouse after swearing an oath to defend it.
How would they know if there were any objections if they never asked for them?
Somebody posted a transcript from a documentary about the electoral vote count in 2000. Al Gore asked for objections. There were no objections that met the qualifications (written and signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate). Gore never did receive a valid written objection, but he still asked the question; he had to. It’s the law.
I know it’s in vogue for the Congress under Obama’s coup to just change the way they do things on a whim, ignoring laws and rules (kind of like the Hawaii DOH...) but that is not lawful.
If you’re saying that Congress changed the law to say that the question asking for objections doesn’t have to be asked then please cite for me the law where they changed that. Absent that, they clearly violated the law you posted here, which means that the process was never legally completed.
If you watch this all the way through, and read the transcript below, the differences in the procedure of the two electoral vote certifications of these elections is clear.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQrs_5KOIRc
Though the complete text is muffled in the video,
here’s the transcript, point being that Gore did
follow the prescribed Constitutional procedure and
called for objections. For whatever godknowswhatreason,
VP Cheney did not:
REP. CHAKA FATTAH, (D) Pennsylvania: This is the one we have all been waiting for. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the state of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the state of Texas received 25 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the state of Wyoming received 25 votes for Vice President.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is there an objection?
KWAME HOLMAN: There was, from Florida Congressman Alcyee Hastings.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the gentleman’s objection in writing, and signed by a member of the House of Representatives and by a Senator?
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS, (D) Florida: Mr. President— and I take great pride in calling you that— I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: (pounding gavel) The chair must remind members that under section 18, title iii, United States code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President. To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives, but not by a member of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.
KWAME HOLMAN: But that didn’t stop 13 other Democrats, primarily members of the Congressional Black Caucus, from stating similar objections.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the point of order in writing, and signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a Senator?
REP. CORRINE BROWN, (D) Florida: Mr. President, it is in writing and signed by several House colleagues on behalf of— and myself— the 27,000 voters of Duval County, of which 16,000 of them are African Americans that were disenfranchised in this last election.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The gentlewoman will suspend.
KWAME HOLMAN: The parade of objections lasted 20 minutes.
REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) California: Mr. Vice President, I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Is the objection in writing, and signed by a member of the House and a Senator?
REP. MAXINE WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate. (Applause)
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The chair will advise that the rules do care, and the signature of a Senator … (Laughter and applause)
KWAME HOLMAN: Through it all, the Vice President tried to remain businesslike, but he couldn’t ignore the irony of the situation in which he found himself.
REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR., (D) Illinois: And it is a sad day in America, Mr. President, when we cannot find a Senator to sign these objections. New Democratic Senators will not sign the objection, Mr. President. I object.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but — hey — on the basis previously stated, the objection is not in order.
KWAME HOLMAN: Finally, Congressman Hastings stood one last time to inform the Vice President his supporters had done all they could.
VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: (Laughs) The chair thanks the gentleman from Florida. (Laughter)
KWAME HOLMAN: With that, members of the Congressional Black Caucus quietly left the chamber. The vote tallying continued, and George W. Bush was certified as the President-elect without further interruption.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june01/certified_01-08.html
______________________________________________
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html
“*snip*
The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2009 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order.
The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate.
***The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made.
(...also referenced by Cornell University Law School,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.shtml ... “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.”
and likely all authorities and credible educational institutions who reference historical fact.)
If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
I’m assuming you’ve never been either Enlisted or an Officer in the military then; as the military makes such a big deal about the qualifier “LAWFUL” in its briefings to the enlisted.
I said:
“IOW, we know that he has not been lawfully certified as the electoral winner, and we know that he has not been lawfully certified as eligible for the office of POTUS. The entire legal procedure has been evaded.
Is that problematic for you?”
You said:
“No, its not problematic for me”
If the entire legal process being evaded is not problematic for you then I have nothing left to say to you. You are a man of lawlessness; there’s no sense trying to reason with you.
For anybody else who is following along just let me say: It cannot be known which person had the most votes if it’s never been determined whether all the votes will stand or whether they will be disqualified because of an objection. The vote count was stopped in mid-process, before any potential objections and disqualifications were addressed. There is no way to legally know what the final count ever was because the final step in the process never happened.
That’s like ending last year’s Nebraska-Texas football game without ever waiting to hear the result of the officials’ review to see whether one second needed to be put back on the clock. You’re not done if the results of a review are still pending. If you’re a Nebraskan and you celebrate winning the game when you know the play is being reviewed you’re a moron.
The country right now is still stuck in that review. People have gone on as if the outcome of the game was already known, but the refs never completed their review. They just sort of ignored that part, which was required by law in order for any next step in the process to take place.
It was as illegal as heck, which is why Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Pelosi, Cheney, etc, for their failure to obey the law and complete the necessary process before any inauguration could take place. That lawsuit has still not been resolved. The review is still underway.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was talking about. I had forgotten who posted it. The difference is glaring, as you say. Twenty minutes’ worth of people trying but not managing to come up with a valid objection between them all.
Versus the question not even being asked.
The objections are made in writing. If you haven’t received any, you don’t have objections. And NO ONE has ever suggested that ANY member of Congress harbored an objection - yet on the basis that Cheney didn’t verbally ask for someone to bring him a written objection, you wish to overturn the election?
You DO realize that most of the people and most of the Electoral College voted for the bastard, don’t you?
Take it to court, BDZ, and you’ll be properly laughed out of court.
Take it to the voters, and you wouldn’t get 1% of the voters to agree with you.
You don’t overturn an election because the Congress that made the rules didn’t have any written objections, and the VP didn’t verbally ask for any non-existent objections. It was the will of the people that Obama become President. I think that is appalling, but I thought that of Bill Clinton as well.
Its not problematic for me because it is complete nonsense as are many things that you say. When you have already made up your mind, your obsessive search for the truth will not likely bear fruit. Let me know when the courts agree with you, I’m not holding my breath.
“The vote count was stopped in mid-process, before any potential objections and disqualifications were addressed. “
That simply is not true. You know full well that NO ONE in Congress objected, and no one submitted a written objection, as is required.
You think maybe John McCain had an objection, but just sat quietly because no one asked him? Do you think ANY member of Congress would sit quietly on an objection, and then afterward burn it so no one would know? What color is the sky on the planet where you live?
When did Al Gore receive the qualifying written objections?
Absolutely! I find it remarkable that so many service men on here think that they are duty bound to follow any order handed down through the chain of command from the Commander in Chief if they believe his order or himself to be illegal....there is NOTHING that substantiates such a claim!
Before he asked the question, most likely. He certainly knew the objection was going to be made, and if he had skipped asking, the members would have eaten him alive.
There is NOTHING illegal about an order to deploy. And there is no doubt that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office without any objection from the Congress or Courts.
The idea that Dick Cheney could overturn the result of a presidential election by not verbally asking for written objections is pretty hilarious. It would mean that tbe Vice President has an absolute veto over who is elected president. It just goes to show the lengths to which a political obsession can take you.
So his asking the question had nothing to do with the fact that the law requires it.
The law does not require the objections to be submitted in advance, but you want to make that the requirement.
The law DOES require the question to be asked but you want to make that not a requirement.
White is black and black is white. I get it. It’s lawlessness. The rules change according to whatever talking point you’ve been given to spout off. The same foundation as Congress under the Obama Coup: the rule by men, not the rule of law.
That’s why this is WAY, WAY bigger than just Obama. It is a fight for the very rule of law in this country. I’ve said that all along, and more and more people are looking at the utter lawlessness everywhere and realizing it’s true.
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.