a question or two about the "Senator Plan".

[garybeck]

My understanding is, if a senator contests Ohio, all that does is bring it to a vote before both houses.

Does anyone know-

When would they vote?

Would there be an opportunity for the people contesting to state their case and provide evidence?

What if the Senate votes one way and the House the other way?

[gulogulo]

1. Answers

They would vote (almost) immediately

The debate would be limited to two hours.

The Senate would vote for Vice President. The House would vote for President.

[BamaBecky]

26. SO WE NEED TO BE FLOODING THE SENATORS WITH THE EVIDENCE NOW ! n/t

[Dancing_Dave]

38. We should flood Dem Senators with ev. of SENATE vote rigging

Personlize the issue and show how vote rigging could affect their own job!

Of course, the Repukes have been stealing congressional elections big time since 2002:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/voting_machines.htm

Now that's one link every blue Senator and Representative needs to know all about!

[read the law first]

2. Who has a House State Delegation breakdown?

Has anyone done a State Delegation breakdown of the House?

If so, what is the result?

How many state delegations are controlled by pukes and how many by us?

[read the law first]

3. Answered my own question

From Michael Barone - Editor of the Almanac of American Politics - Under the Constitution, if no candidate gets an absolute majority of the electors, the president is elected by the House, with each state's delegation getting one vote. Currently, Republicans control 30 state delegations in the House, Democrats 16, and 4 are tied. That means that if today's House were voting and George W. Bush and John Kerry each had 269 electoral votes, Bush would be elected. But it is the House to be elected November 2 that votes. Will the Republicans still have a majority of state delegations in the House?

The answer is almost certainly yes. By my estimate, 24 House delegations are sure to retain Republican majorities. Six Republican delegations could conceivably shift to Democratic. That would give the Democrats 22 delegations, not enough to elect Kerry. Furthermore, only 13 of the 16 Democratic delegations are, in my view, certain to remain Democratic. Three could go Republican; and if two of them did, Republicans, even in their worst case scenario, would have 26 delegations, the needed majority.

Here are my estimates of the prospects for Republicans and Democrats retaining their current partisan majorities.

Republican delegations: Will surely remain Republican (25): Ala., Alaska, Ariz., Del., Fla., Ga., Idaho, Ind., Iowa, Kan., Ky., La., Miss., Mo., Mont., Neb., N.H., Ohio, Okla., Pa., S.C., Utah, Va., Wyo. Will likely remain Republican (4): Colo. (Demos could win the open seat Colo.-3, but Bob Beauprez in Colo.-7 seems well ahead because of opponent's Columbine problems), Ill. (Phil Crane is being seriously challenged in what should be a safe Republican seat), Nev. (Nev.-3 a possible upset), N.M. (N.M.-1 always close), N.C. (N.C.-11 in some jeopardy). Fairly good chance of switching from Republican to Democratic (1): Conn. (if either Rob Simmons in Conn.-2 or Chris Shays in Conn.-4 loses).

My prognosis: Republicans are very unlikely to lose more than two delegations. That would leave them with 28 delegations, a solid win for Bush.

[Griffy]

4. but it sends a strong msg... we are not going away.. and will challenge u!

[Griffy]

5. now.. if there is a million ppl outside screaming fraud...

anything could happen... it will depend on the state of affairs in Ohio at the time... just be in DC on the 6th.. if you care about democracy.

[read the law first]

7. bought the airline tickets today n/t

[read the law first]

6. ok, I'll buy that. n/t

[garybeck]

8. i agree it's good to send a message

but we must agree that the Senator Plan is a dead end street as far as Kerry goes.

I keep saying, Kerry's road to the whitehouse is through the Supreme Court.

The Arnebeck suit has nothing to do with the electors, and could bypass all those replublican legislators.

remember it was 5-4 in Bush v Gore. Just one person has to change their mind about Bush, or even just be willing to look at this case on facts rather than partisanship.

I'd say getting one Sumpreme Court judge to be objective and non-partisan is a lot more likely than getting half the republicans in congress to do so.

having said that, it would be great if the ohio electors were being contested in the senate just as Arnebeck's case was before the Supreme Court.

[Senator]

10. I think hell would freeze over...

...before the Felonious Five would do anything ethical.

They're already in for a penny, so in for a pound.

And remember what we're dealing with here. These fascists are ruthless sociopaths. And hundred of billions in blood money and tax kickbacks are at stake.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we find out decades from now that (In)Justice Kennedy was coerced into "agreement" back in 2000.

___
www.thedeanpeople.org

[garybeck]

11. people do strange things on their death beds n/t

[Senator]

14. He he, c'mon ...

...Bully Bill suddenly having a Lee Atwater revelation?

(or does one of the other have a foot in the grave?)

[garybeck]

18. think about this

at some point money doesn't buy everything.

Suppose one of the Supreme Court Justices has a cousin who just died in Iraq. Or a kid who's draft age.

I think the war is causing people to open their eyes a bit.

[Senator]

22. money (and power) is the goal, not the means

If there's one cousin dead, there is certainly another who could easily wind up dead in Iraq, or elsewhere.

I said coerced, not bribed. These are torturers and murderers. Chuckling their way back from the "bad apples, isolated incidents, plausibly denying" press conferences.

We can't risk misunderestimating their brutality. Wouldn't be prudent.

__

[garybeck]

21. do you see any other way Kerry gets inaugurated

I'm just trying to find a scenario where it works out for Kerry and the only chance to me seems to be the supreme court. Is there any other I'm missing? I just don't think the Senator Plan can work of itself because of the strong Republican majority in the legislature.

[Senator]

23. Their majority is not all that strong

It would only take a handful of Reps and a few Senators to abandon the neofascists. And remember, John Kerry has been in that town for many, many years. He has real, personal relationships with many of those folks.

But that really only means it's a razor's edge. He will (or has already) fold(ed) like a pup tent, or get the support he needs to vanquish these wretches.

The frustrating part is that it's not likely we'll ever know if he tried, how close he came, or anything about it. Unless it is real and he pulls it off.


_____

[NotNInch]

32. I Concur GaryBeck

We've all watched over the last four years and none of the supremes have opted to retire. Not even one. Several of them were expected to, especially after * took the throne, but they didn't.

I have felt for a long time that most if not all have felt the burden of responsibility they own for the decision they made in 2000 and the disastrous four years that followed. I believe at least some are waiting til * is out of there.

One bit of evidence is their recent attempt to challenge the Gauntanimo (sp?) procedures, esp. O'Conner's comments.

There's not a doubt in my mind that the Supremes would recognize the rampant election fraud and make adjustments necessary to begin restoring our Democracy.

[liberalnurse]

27. Here ya go......

I'll give you the links for each; House and Senate.


House:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml

Senate:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Wabbajack]

33. Pukes 30

Dem 17 counting Bernie Sanders

3 tied including Mississippi where DINO Gene Taylor would vote for Bush

[read the law first]

36. Thanks. n/t

[Senator]

9. Beg to differ w/ first answer

If a Senator joins in a challenge to electors (need 1 House member as well), yes the 2 bodies immediately stop counting and separate.

But they don't choose the winner, just debate and vote on supporting the challenge or not.

Both bodies must reject. If not, electors are counted.

If both reject they are not counted.

At that point counting continues in joint session. Winner is the one with a majority of what's left. DeLay claimed the opposite in 2000 (that 270 was required or the House decides) when rejecting FL would have put Gore in, but he'll be "wised up" this time because the bushkid supposedly still has more than Kerry even without Ohio. (Unless of course FL, NM, CO, NV, or other show trouble.)

The other scenario is if the Ohio Dems send a slate of electors to the archivist of Congress, and there are competing slates.

Congress can simply count the Kerry slate and he wins with 272.

Did I miss anything?

____
www.thedeanpeople.org

[read the law first]

12. I thought that the state delegations vote in the house.

Isn't it that the state delegations vote for the President in the House and each Senator votes for Vice President in the Senate? Or is that just if nobody gets a majority?

BTW, the breakdown for the 109th Congress is 30 states with puke delegations 16 for us, 3 tied and one independent who votes with us.

[Senator]

15. Yes, just for "no majority" n/t

[read the law first]

17. Majority of total electors or majority of votes cast?

thanks.:toast:

[Senator]

24. Majority of electoral votes counted...

...not including any electors that were disallowed by sustained objections. So as we stand now, if only Ohio is disallowed, the bushkid still has stolen enough (262) to win.

This is why they tried to declare themselves the winner of everything still up in air on election night. To create the appearance of inevitability that worked in stealing 2000.

_______

[read the law first]

13. why would a puke congress count the Kerry slate? n/t

[Senator]

19. Well, that answer's a bit longer...

...but luckily I've given it before. So I'll cut/paste.

The thing to keep in mind is that should it "be decided" that Ohio did not elect the bushkid, there's only one other moral option for who they really wanted. So we know who the rightful winner should be.

From thedeanpeople FAQ (or huh?) page:

The Repubs will just vote down any objection. Is there any hope?

Sure, that's most likely. But....the political landscape could well change. Or even
turn on a dime, should there be some fruits from the efforts ongoing in Ohio and
elsewhere. We could end up in situation where even some Repubs are concerned
about the integrity of the election. (Yes, really.)

But even if not, we could have a situation where the public gets wise. And then you
could have "impeachment numbers." Where 70% of the country thinks (not simply
that we should moveon) but that there's treason afoot.

It's one thing for cowardly politicians to sit on their hands while someone's cronies
foist an appointed ruler on us (as opposed to an elected leader) with some legal
mumbo jumbo, smoke and mirrors. But it's quite another to face down a 70%
negative public opinion poll.

(Which is exactly what they were facing in 2000 when Frank Luntz focus-grouped the scenario of
the Florida Legislature doing the dirty work. They had no choice but to defecate on the institution of
the high court to "shut it down." History will surely judge that harshly.)

And they thought they had an image problem with Gingrich around.
________

[read the law first]

16. So, they don't challenge the election, they challenge state's electors?

The challenge has to be state by state and they vote on each one?

[Senator]

20. Yes, theoretically...

...each and every state's electors can be challenged as not being "regularly appointed."

And for each legal challenge (1 sen + 1 rep, signed and written out) they must retire to the separate bodies. It could take days.

The bottom line is that Congress, as a whole, can really do whatever they want. Which is pretty much always true. There is even a provision that "by law" they can provide for an acting president until they sort things out, should they deem it necessary.

This is why all this "deadlines" talk is just fascist propaganda. Designed to force their desired result, without any moral, constitutional, or legal basis whatsoever.

They really are enemies of democracy and therefore Anti-American to the core. It's harsh but true.


____
www.thedeanpeople.org

[read the law first]

25. They're REPUBLICANS, of course they're enemies of DEMOCRACY

Republicans by their very name are the enemies of democracy.

[Senator]

28. This is off topic but...

... you want to be careful about the distinction you're making there.

Contrasting democracy and republic actually a element of fascist propaganda. One of their most insidious slogan-memes is "we're not a democracy, we're a republic!" Which is often followed by some Pavlovian mention of "mob rule" (oh my!). And sometimes they patter on about a bogey man of "direct democracy" (which has never, and could never, exist -- nope not even ancient Greece) and how crazy it would be for everyone to vote on absolutely everything. We have to spend all our time voting on things (not that anyone in the conversation was suggesting that, or ever has).

The thing is, the word republic has no meaning other than not a monarchy (which is kingdom). We are a democratic republic, the former Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Guantanamo Gulag is carved out of the Republic of Cuba, and so on.

So what is the actual content of their slogan-meme: Democracy is Bad. Something we are not and do not want to be.

The "republic" part of the meme is an empty vessel. Into which the speaker can, in his own head, fill in some non-specific, indescribable notion of an ideal form of gov't -- in essence just an emotion. They are certain that it is this notion that our founding fathers forged so many years ago, mainly because they feared gov't by the masses (look out! - mob rule again).

And they've built up quite a bit of pseudo-scholarly hogwash around this meme. They have persuasive quotes from "founding fathers" -- who are often the ones who lost the constitutional debates (Mason, Henry). When they quote Madison or Jefferson -- and they know they must to be taken seriously even by school kids -- it is always out of full context, or more often using statements they made long after the founding when they became regular politicians trying to get something done or stopped.

But I'll stop before I get to the word "arms" never having had a non-military meaning, and included things like tents and wagons -- that is until sometime in the 1970's.

______
www.thedeanpeople.org

[read the law first]

29. Doesn't that prove my point?

:toast:

[Senator]

30. Your point's certainly correct, but...

...I was just pointing out that in making it the way you did using "by their name," you are in fact unecessarily assisting them in their propaganda strategy.

It is perpetuating their frame of false options: "Republic vs. Democracy."

As I've said above, the reality of their frame is: "Democracy vs. NOT Democracy."

They need their false frame to continue fooling some of the people, some of the time.

[read the law first]

34. Going way off topic, but I'd like your view.....

What does the Constitution mean when, in Article IV, Section 4 it says that the States are required to have a republican form of goverment? I know obviously that doesn't mean you have to elect pukes, but in light of your earlier posts, are they making a distinction or not? I keep getting that thrown in my face by the pukes and I'd like to have a snappy (but correct) comeback.

[Senator]

37. They are making a distinction...

...but only between sovereignty/power residing in the people vs. residing in a person or persons (king/regent, emperor, dictator, politburo/central committee/party).

Now in their day that was a rather important distinction. Most of the people in the world were subjects of someone else's "legitimate" power. Today there are very few places where rulers, in theory, claim/maintain political power without at least lip service being paid to being an instrument of the people, thereby being "republics."

But it's difficult to provide you with a "snappy comeback" because they use this "argument" in very different contexts. Perhaps you can give an example.

______
www.thedeanpeople.org

[Turn CO Blue]

31. Okay, I think one important aspect of a Senator challenging

the election, regardless of the outcome or failure to put Kerry into the WH -- is that the challenge would go in the history books.



edited: typo (it's getting late!)

[read the law first]

35. I'll buy that. n/t