Posted on 12/15/2008 5:00:47 PM PST by lewisglad
It's official: Barack Obama elected 44th president 3 hours ago
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Presidential electors have formally elected Barack Obama the nation's 44th president.
Electors gathering in state capitols across the country have pushed Obama above the 270 electoral votes needed to win, according to a tally by The Associated Press. Obama takes office Jan. 20, becoming the nation's first black president.
Monday's voting was a largely ceremonial procedure, but one mandated by the Constitution. Obama defeated Republican Sen. John McCain in the Nov. 4 election.
More than 131 million voters cast ballots — the most ever in a presidential election. But Obama's election will not be complete until Congress tallies the outcome of Monday's Electoral College vote at a joint session scheduled for Jan. 6.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
A Sad Day
No.
The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a power? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers.Almost everything written in this paragraph about unconstitutional legislation and the Court could also be said of a usurper and the President of the Senate. Let's see how it sounds:
The Constitution does not expressly provide for rejection of votes for persons ineligible to assume the Presidency. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend that such votes should be rejected? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the it was sufficiently clear that the President of the Senate presiding over the counting of the votes obviously had this power and that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because no one ineligible would ever have the balls to put his name before the electors.
ML/NJ
It’s not just you and no, you’re not nuts.
What else can we do at this point?
So much for the Constitution. It doesn’t mean shit.
There’s a new Obama quarter out but it won’t work in Coke machines because the ears stick out too far.
American won’t last 8 years under Zero’s rule. It won’t last 4. Thank God for the Phoenix effect.
President Clinton was treated with respect until he proved himself unworthy by going back on deals he made with the Republican Congress, and then, yes, the indignity in the Oval Office and then lying about it under oath and to the American people.
Bush was treated with disrespect from DAY ONE by the libs.
The reason I cannot treat the Evil One with any respect is because 1) he lied when he said he would take public money, and then pulled the rug out and took all kinds of money to BUY the election and 2) As a NICU nurse, I am totally outraged by his indifference to tiny babies born alive and treated like trash after an abortion.
This evil man will NEVER be my president unless he gets down on his knees and repents of his grievous sins against these precious children.
Like the Catholic Church has had "Anti-Popes", we should refer to the Liberal Messiah as the "Anti-President".
He also says “I’m about change and there will be no lobbyists or lobbyist ties in my administration”. Then he turns right around and has appointed two to cabinet jobs already.
Don't get your hopes up on Cheney rejecting any ballots.
No. I don't hold out much hope. But I do think he could take the power if he thought it was the right thing to do. Given the way things seem to work now, that rejection would be challenged, and it would wind up before the USSC in a case they would not be able to reject.
ML/NJ
Any objection must come from at least one member of EACH house.
Carry on. Keep up the pressure.
See #98 says it best...IMO
So, believe me, despite what the Left wants to tell you, it's not over yet! In fact, if you look around the internet, you'll see that many were predicting that nothing can be done until a crime had been committed... perhaps why the stay were denied, but the cases are still pending.
He can play mr. president for all of his cult followers if he likes. I prefer to treat him the same way the democrat senators, congresspeople and the rest of the rats treated President Bush. Just the thought of him trying to salute the troops sickens me. Nothing will make me accept that fraud. Inauguration day is just another day.
I remember calls for Clinton's impeachment beginning before he took office.
“I have told everyone that I know that I will treat Obama with the same respect that the Democrats gave to President George W. Bush. That’s how you shut a liberal up.”
LOL! I have said the same thing to libs. They look stunned when I say it. They have absolutely no response. Except one. She replied with the moronic comment: “But that was different!” And she was serious! She really believed it was okay to trash Bush and yet — in the same breath — insist that Odumbo deserved respect and deference. I am convinced that liberalism (as it exists nowadays) is around so that mental defectives have something to do. Libs just cannot think logically.
Yep exactly what I’ve said to everyone. He is not my President and nothing he signs into law is legitmate until he shows the BC!
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.