Reply #104: Tell the truth and give the fight for our Constitutional Democracy 100%

[pat_k]

Both Gore and Kerry failed to fight for the only real stakeholders in an election: the voters.

Risking ridicule or sacrificing future political viability pales when compared to the risks faced by the members of our armed services. We expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to risk life and limb to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. We should expect no less from our candidates and elected officials.

It was well-known that the appointment of the Bush electors in Florida in 2000 did not reflect the will of the voters. Even Republicans readily acknowledge that if all the votes in Florida were counted, Gore won, but they justify appointing the losing candidate's electors by adhering to a fascist and Un-American view of the law; a view that has no problem invoking legal technicality and the cynical misuse of our courts to trump reality.

Kerry was well aware of the innumerable problems with the elections in Ohio and Florida in 2004 (and New Mexico, and other states for that matter). Even if he had irrationally dismissed the massive disconnect between the exit polls and the official (o-fishy) tallies on November 3rd, by mid-November, it was clear that something was seriously amiss.

There is nothing binding about a concession. Elections belong to the people, not the candidates. As the truth became clear, Kerry had a duty to the people to stand up, withdraw his concession, and call on the election officials in Ohio to address the problems or risk having ANY slate of electors they might appoint rejected by Congress.

Both Gore and Kerry had a choice. Stand up for the principle of consent and assert the right of the people to have confidence in their elections, or crumble and be complicit with the perpetrators of fraud.

Even after every court decision (even SCOTUS) and the appointment of electors, both Kerry and Gore had a duty to stand up for the will of the people and open a mouth, tell the truth, and call on Congress to carry out its Constitutional duty to ensure the will of the people prevails.

On January 6th, when the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to pass judgment on those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether the electors from each state have been lawfully appointed pursuant to an election that is a valid measure of consent.

The Supreme Court's Un-Constitutional intervention on December 12th, 2000 was a blatant attempt to usurp the role of Congress (aided and abetted by the pund-idiots and fascists who parroted the "highest court of the land” propaganda until the big lie became "conventional wisdom").

After December 12th, it was up to members of the House and Senate to save the nation from the irreparable breach of our Constitution. In fact, Justice Breyer instructed them on their duty in his dissent to Bush v. Gore

531 U. S. ____ (2000), Breyer, J., dissenting, Bush v. Gore (from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html - emphasis added)

The legislative history of the {Electoral Count} Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:

"The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal." H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).

The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:

"The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented." 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).

Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.

To count "only legal votes" they MUST make a judgment.

To represent "the people in their sovereign capacity" the judgment must take into account the necessity for states to meet their obligation to conduct a fair election that instills confidence in the results. Disparate treatment of voters alone is sufficient to invalidate an election. (10 hour poll-tax lines for working class, poor, and minority voters and none for wealthy whites is an intolerable condition -- a clear violation of any rational "fair election" standard.)

They are Congress, not the Judiciary. They have a different role to play. They are the back stop to ensure that the intent of the law and the will of the electorate are carried out. It is their job to "preserve the government" – i.e., to preserve a government that has been instituted by We the People, and that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. They must rely on their own judgment and conscience to determine what constitutes a "regularly given" electoral vote and a "lawfully appointed" elector.

On January 6th, each Member of Congress must make an independent judgment -- a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent. The intent of our election laws is to ensure that election results reflect OUR will.

It is an absolute necessity that we have confidence that our elected officials have obtained our consent and therefore exercise legitimate authority.

Gore failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. Kerry failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. In 2000, with the exception of our heroes in the Congressional Black Caucus and handful of others, the members of the House and Senate failed to stand and fight to preserve our Constitutional Democracy. More of them joined the fight in 2004 (including one brave member of the Senate, Barbara Boxer), but tragically, a vast majority of the members remained complicit with the criminal breach of our founding principle.