Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Details on what happens AFTER a Senator stands and why we could WIN!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:34 AM
Original message
Details on what happens AFTER a Senator stands and why we could WIN!
I've done too much research to boil all this down and considering the reality of the situation in 2001, where the Dems might not have been as scared as you think, and those four years of potential planning for THIS DAY -- not the election, as if you KNEW they would be fixed, you'd know that TODAY is waaaay more important than Nov2.

There is a chance that given the right planning, giving an undeniable objection or even multiple _objections_, today _could_, at least theoretically, see John Kerry declared President.

A strong hope, but it's real.

As suggested, to break up the length of this post, each section is below as its own thread.

Steeled Against All,
FULL_METAL_HAT


Technical Analysis of January 6 2005...
Part 1 (Other parts to follow)



Table of Contents

PART ONE

  1. Introduction

  2. Historical Background and Context

    1. "We The People"
    2. Why 2K?
    3. Courage of the Democrats

  3. Procedure

    1. Joint session
    2. Two houses divided
    3. 12 Angry Dems
    4. The fate of America could rest on just 20 Republicans




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. 1 - Introduction


1 - Introduction


This analysis was originally started to confirm or deny the possibility and probability of an event that could redress the fears of many Americans, specifically that their constitutionally guaranteed right to honest representation in the government, that they themselves wholly constitute, was denied.

This overall process used could be called abduction which consists in examining a mass of facts and in allowing these facts to suggest a theory.

Could the events leading up to January 6th Congressional acceptance of the electoral votes bring any light to how those votes would be counted and whether a challenge to those votes could succeed?

The best case scenario is very appealing and could be orchestrated, but it depends on the strength of the evidence. Given the right evidence, an Open-and-Shut case, that could change the election with a very legitimate finality, could happen in just one day. This best case would involve both Ohio and Florida, the unveiling of undeniable evidence that would convince just 20 Republicans Senators and Congresspeople beyond a shadow of a doubt, and all this could happen before the scheduled recess of congress on that very day.

That scenario would, of course, be the best considering the incredible blow to the American people a protracted partisan struggle would create. However given the stakes for those in power, this case could be the the only thing standing between a true and false democracy.

Reasonably there would be resistance, in the form of an immediate recess until the next day at 10 am. However, according to US law, this process of delay could not go on for more than five calendar days, or Tuesday January 11th.

Sometime in the next six days we should know one way or the other.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. I would appreciate comments on on the sections of this :)
I'd like to think each part does a good job to reinforce the main idea, that there _is_ the possibility of an election reverse, but at the same time each section addresses certain mis-ambig-ularities that have led people to believe there is not much hope!

Perhaps comment on the thing that you were most surpised by?

For my money the boxing-in of Gore as President of the Senate and Chief-vote-for-yourself was the biggest surprise/shock I've had since Nov7 2000.

Most of the things that have come out have not surprised me, after all I do have a metal hat :)

Welcome to D-Day 2004

FULL_METAL_HAT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. 2 - Historical Background and Context


2 - Historical Background and Context

The key elements of the history and context of this challenge are of course the events and outcome of the election in 2000 that ultimately had Bush declared as the de facto winner by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), despite the fact that in truth their power being third in line to the ultimate power embodied by the Congress made up of We the people".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. 2 -1 We The People

We The People"

The Constitution of the United States of America is heralded as the shining example of the foundation of a political system in which the government is granted powers to no one other than its citizens, via their elected representatives. This comes from the very first two parts of the Constitution:

Preamble
We the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1 Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Other sections reaffirm, as the representatives of the people, the Congress specific power over all other branches of government.

Article I Section 8
... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The second article of the Constitution gives the definition of the executive power and the process of the election of the executive, written in its first section, and the ability for Congress to remove those powers is written in its fourth section:
Article 2 Section 1
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: ...
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Article 2 Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The next article covers the creation of the courts, and the extent of powers of the third level of the government is laid out in the third articles first two sections:

Article 3 Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Article 3 Section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, ... to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
This second section also talks about the all the crimes in the jurisdiction of the courts and points out their responsibility is universal except for cases involving impeaching the executive powers, which is obviously held by the congress, the people, and not any courts.
Article 3 Section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury...
The definition of the highest crime, treason, is explicitly made in the constitution, and only the highest power of the congress is able to declare punishment for something so heinous to the state.

Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ...
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason ...
Some other interesting elements are divined in a number of the Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment 1 (1791) Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Amendment 14 (1870) - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment 26 (1971) - The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Scholars argued after 2000s election on why the supreme court should not have decided its contest, as Congress is the ultimate body of power, and exists to represent the will of the people.

It would seem natural that Congress should have been the final decision on the count of the electoral votes in the 2000 election. Its power to do this is laid out in the first section of article two, in amendments 12 (1804), 14 (1868), 23 (1961). Further it is written into the government body of laws called the United States Code" in title 3, chapter 1 subsections 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

With so much indicating that the Congress should have been the arbiter, not the Supreme Court, it is fair to ask why this was not the case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. 2-2 Why 2K?

Why 2K?

The situation left after the Supreme Courts decision in December 2000, created an amazing opportunity to exploit the nobility of congress.

Many people are aware of the strange situation on January 5th, 2000, when members of the Congressional Black Congress stood up to protest the counting of the electoral votes from the state of Florida. They considered those electoral votes to be not regularly given" due to constitutional infringements, under the 14th amendment, and in US Code:

Amendment 14 (1968)
... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any ... citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, ... the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion ...

USC Title 3 Chapter 1 Subsection 15
... no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have <not> been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified
The same subsection 15 states that such an objection brought up in the counting of the electoral votes, needs to be in writing, and have the support, through their signature, of one member of the House of Representatives and one member of the Senate. Briefly, the process at that point has the two bodies separate, debate for up to 2 hours and vote on the objection.

On January 5, 2001, there was a very precarious position in the congress as the House of Representatives had a Republican majority, but the Senate was tied with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. If an objection to the counting of electoral votes was called for, a tie in the Senates vote would have to be broken by the President of the Senate. This role is specifically defined in Article Two Section Three:

Article 2 Section 3
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
Further, the 20th Amendment defines the terms of both the Congress and the Executive:

Amendment 20 (1933) - Section 1
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January...
With a new congress and its equally balanced number of partisan members, the Senates deciding vote for the rejection of Floridas electors, and thus the Presidency of the United States would have fallen to Al Gore, the Vice President until January 20th, and of course the very person who would be President with a successful challenge.

That kind of boxed-in situation, in which Gore could have vote himself into office left the Democrats in a terrible situation, since both Houses would need to vote for the objection. If the objection was allowed, there could be two possible scenarios. Either the Republican majority in the House of Representatives would vote against the objection, thus forcing the denial to the objection of the electors, and the Senates majority including Gores vote would be useless. However, if the House of Representatives voted for the objection, the Senates tie would mean the entire presidency would come down to one mans vote.

It would seem that the entire power of Congress, and by extension, the power of the people to choose their own government leaders was voided by the potential of creating a hopelessly divisive government on the one hand, or a self-annointed President on the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. 2-3 Courage of the Democrats

Courage of the Democrats

Knowing this situation in more detail reconsider their fear that Democrats were simply too scared to do anything about the disenfranchisement of the many voters in Florida, and see that in fact, the resentment of being forced into such a situation could make Democratic leaders take up a stronger measure of courage when given a new opportunity.

Over the last four years, there has been more change and strife in the nation then perhaps ever before. The administration ultimately chosen by the Supreme Court and unchallenged by the Congress, has seeming worked against all efforts to make for a more responsible and transparent election process. The aggressive and determined will of the executive branch and the complicity of a Republican Congress has all but doused the hopes of civilized and diplomatic efforts, made in good faith, to make any changes at all.

In the face of what is retrospectively an impossible attempt to make those changes, perhaps the Democrats decided that their efforts would have to be less civilized and less diplomatic, utilizing any and all means within the rule of law to redress their grievances given to them under the first amendment.

To accomplish such a feat would require an intimate knowledge of the law, and the will to exploit any advantages that could be discovered in the procedures used to express the will of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. 3 - Procedure


3 - Procedure

As laid out in the constitution and in the US Code, the objection to the election of the President has a very specific procedure. Typically this is a purely ceremonial function, but the law does outline what is done if there is an objection to the electors from any state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. 3-1 Joint Session & Two houses divided
Edited on Thu Jan-06-05 08:39 AM by FULL_METAL_HAT

Joint session

In a special joint session of Congress held in the House of Representatives Chamber, the winner of the each states electoral votes for President are announced, one state at a time, in alphabetical order.

If an objection is made to a states electors that is in writing and signed by one senator and one representative, an extraordinary procedure is put in place where the Senators return to their own chamber and over a two hour period, each body debates the merits of the objection brought forth.

Two houses divided

Once the two houses have divided, the US law states that there is a debate with three simple rules:

  1. Each speaker is allowed only five minutes
  2. No Speaker can speak more than once
  3. No longer than 2 hours. At this point the presiding officer of each body calls for a voice vote on the objection.

Election contests are unlike typical courtroom dramas with extended evidence discovery, but rather all the objections must be stated explicitly in the original protest, and only those points presented are debated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. 3-2 12 Angry Dems

12 Angry Dems

A question still remains on who gets to speak. With a maximum of five minutes and a total of 120 minutes there cannot be more than 24 speakers in total. Assuming there is a traditional partisan split, in each body there would be twelve Democrats given the opportunity to present the case, and twelve Republicans with the opportunity to refute it. As well, both the House and the Senate have a single Independent who may be given a deference to speak, which would take away a position from either the Democrats or the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. 3-3 The fate of America could rest on just 20 Republicans

The fate of America could rest on just 20 Republicans

In the House of Representatives, there are 206 Democrats, 233 Republicans, and one Independent. Assuming the Democrats and Independent vote unanimously, a majority vote for an objection would need only 14 Republicans to be convinced to achieve 221 votes. Thats just 6%. Looking at that, it does make the possibility of rejection real.

The Senate is now composed of 44 Democrats, 55 Republicans, and one Independent. Again assuming a unanimous vote of the Democrats and Independent, a majority vote for an objection would need only 6 Republicans to be convinced to achieve 51 votes. Again, seeking the vote of only 6 Republicans (10%) gives credence to the possibility of a successful rejection of the states electoral votes.

One of the best things from this analysis is the realization that there are just 20 people whose decision would change everything.

When both the Senate and the House of Representatives have had their debate and vote, they return to the joint session.

If both bodies are not unanimous in their decisions on the objection, then the electoral votes of the state in question are accepted.

However, if both houses agree, then quite simply those votes are rejected.

In this 2004 election, the tally of electoral votes is 252 for John Kerry, and 286 for George Bush. A successful objection to the state of Ohio would discount 20 electoral votes from the 286 awarded, leaving 266. This would be an incredibly significant accomplishment, but would still leave a 14 vote difference between the two contenders.

As we know each state is individually dealt with, so given the evidence for the objection of two states, the joint session would have reconvened after a successful objection to Floridas voters, only to patiently accept the next states votes until reaching the letter O and Ohio, where theyd once again separate and debate for another two hours.

A total of eight hours of debate, hearing from up to forty-eight Senators and Representatives, could swiftly and decisively change the course of the 2004 election in a way no adjudication in any court could.



Parts 2, 3, and 4 to follow.




Obstacles


Indicators of Hope


"The Bombshell"


"Afteplay & Fallout"






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
10. The only way we could win is if Democrats vote in lockstep AND
Edited on Thu Jan-06-05 08:42 AM by Walt Starr
enough Republicans from both the House and Senate join in to vote in favor of the challenge or enough Republicans from both the House and Senate are absent to give the Democrats the majority of votes while still having a quorum present.

Based upon some information from yesterday, this is not a likely scenario, but is entirely within the realm of possibility because apparently there will be many Republicans skipping the tallying of the electoral votes today.

To be quite honest, I'm shocked that the possibility actually exists now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Watch your language! :)
Seriously, the reason _they_ keep winning is prejudiced statements like

"Walt you know very well that this will never happen."

... How about "If I had a chance to do something to change this I would"

Then everytime you think about it, you think POSITIVE rather than HOPELESS.

And this (very sorry to pick on you this morning!! :) ) "All the Democrats except very few will vote for Bush to be President"

Again the pre-ordained FAILURE of the Dems ...

Resignation like that I'm sure got us a long way against the King of England, way way back :>

Again I am sorry to pick on just two lines, and I know how overwhelming the psychological pressure is to OBEY or GIVE UP, depending upon your color, but look at Conyers et al -- they kept fighting despite all odds, and here we are today finally able to do something about the * MAN-DATE-RAPE!

Think the way you like but realize that a tiny twist in the words can enable you rather than disable!

All the best in the new year to you liberalMabhool!

Steeled Against All,
FULL_METAL_HAT


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Hey, maybe Kerry DID have a secret plan
Lots of Senators and Representatives skip what has become viewed as mere formality and maybe, just maybe, the Democrats figured out a way to steal the election back.

:shrug:

If they did, they put Rove to shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. steal the election back?
If someone robbed my car, I see it parked with they keys in the ignition and my registration in the glove box. Do I have the right to take back my unlawfully stolen property? You can bet your butt I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Excuse me,
"the Democrats figured out a way to STEAL the election back"??

HARDLY. The only stealing going on has been from Repuke operatives. IF this miracle really happens, please God, it will have been due to Democrats, FOR ONCE, utilizing valid Constitutional law and standing up for the right of we voters to have our will be known. Such unaccustomed bravery and honorable behavior would be a true break through for our Dem leaders, and about as far from thievery as humanly imaginable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mordarlar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. They are fully aware of what is at stake for them...
if they allow Bush to remain in power. They are a false minority in a congress seeking to eliminate all opposing power and self accountability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. I've read the whole thread
I just wonder why in 1876 the results was a bi-partisan investigation team. Why do you think that will not be the outcome now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last Lemming Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
16. Everything really depends
upon the nature of the evidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoMama49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thanks Full_metal_hat - you have done an awesome job
here! Very well organized and documented. I apreeciate all the research you did for this very much. Have you sent this to any of the major players?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. If the major players have NOT done this then WTP?
I did this to see if, through 'abductive reasoning', they COULD have done the same ... maybe even beginning 4 years ago today.

We shall see!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thanks for the information
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saddemocrat Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
22. very dumb question
I mean...this is REALLY dumb...but...are the votes anonymous? Any repuke that would break ranks on this would see their career over before dinnertime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FULL_METAL_HAT Donating Member (673 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Voice vote -- so "the bomshell" would have to be big enough to counter
that "dinnertime culling" ...

The "bombshell" would have to PUT THE FEAR OF GOD above THE FEAR OF *

Welcome to D-Day 2004!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC