On Jan/6th...it only is 2 hrs. for House and 2hrs. for Senate for Defiance

[KoKo]

Speeches...then the House and Senate Vote...so ...it's a "Done Deal?"

Tell me I'm wrong here....

I'm Not going to watch this...it's better than we got with "Selection 2000" but it's ANOTHER "Election Give Away to the Emperor..."

House and Senate are "confined to only 2 hour each "speeches from the floor contesting Electors..."

There's NO WAY ...we will be able to prove KERRY WON...under those circumstances.

Only way is if New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio and Florida are CONTESTED...Fat chance of that happening....:shrug:

PROVE ME "WRONG" on this? PLEASE!!!!!

[NVMojo]

1. they got Nevada drinking the koolaid ...I am sure something happened

here but the State Dems are too busy fighting among themselves for power to bother ...it is sickening...

[troubleinwinter]

2. Nobody can "prove" you right or wrong before 1/6

Is this the 400th "done deal" thread?

[KoKo]

3. I'm hoping that between now and then...we get a big "boost/leak" whatever

that will cause this to BLOW!!! BIG TIME!

Barring that...we are left with the Consitution Rules...which is 2 hours for House and 2 hours for Senate.

Just thought folks should know that right off the top...

The "Decks are Staked."

[eowyn_of_rohan]

40. Unrealistic thinking

I think most of us have known the decks were stacked against there being a major big-time "blow" for the last month. With every setback not just in Ohio, but in Florida, New Hampshire, and elsewhere, the chances of the election being overturned have become more slim. I am optimistic that SOME statement will be made by Congress on 6 January, but I don't know if it will happen or what impact it will have. I would like 3 or 4, rather than just 1 out of 5 Americans to know and understand that this election was stolen, and that we are living in a dictatorship...No matter what happens in Washington DC, this thing will not curl up and die. If we are disappointed or not well-represented on Jan 6, protests will follow. And they will get bigger and wilder and more and more intense, until justice is served. That is how I feel anyway.

[FreepFryer]

4. No, it's

a procedural guideline (that is not likely to change) that 2 hours be allotted to every objection, not 'the objection' in total.

So, technically, each electoral vote could be objected to by the objecting Senator and Congressman, as could multiple states' votes be individually objected to.

All of this is however only slightly more likely to happen than an asteroid hitting at the same time.

[KoKo]

5. No..."Four hours is the limit for Discussion." It will be "over" very

quickly" and those of us here gearing up and doing the "blow by blow" on the threads for House and Senate Arguments...are going to be really disappointed at how "quickly" it "goes down" for the Chimp...

I will be totally freaked out..and so many others will be also. Those of us who had our Government/School System/Teachers/Professors...TELL US that the SYSTEM OF AMERICAN GOV'T WORKS" are going to be really distraught over this.....

And WE ALL Should be...we were lied to... This MUST NOT STAND...:shrug:

[FreepFryer]

9. No, I agree it's very unlikely but

the technical statute clearly states an objection can be raised to one or more Electoral votes, or an entire State's Electoral votes, and the 2 hours applies to the State under objection. Subsequent objections on the same basis are seen as subsumed in the original.

Finding a reason to independently object to two different votes on two different grounds would be extraordinarily difficult, but 3 U.S.C. §17 can indeed be interpreted in this way.

The Code:
http://www.house.gov/cha/electoralcollege/electoralcollege.html

§ 17. When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.

The Analysis:
http://www.house.gov/rules/electoral_coll.htm

While the Houses are separated, each Senator and Representative may speak on each objection for five minutes, and not more than once per objection. After debate on an objection has lasted two hours, the presiding officer of each House will close debate and call for a vote on the objection. The two houses will reconvene and the presiding officer will announce the final decision. For a vote to be disqualified, the two Houses must concurrently decide the vote in question not to be the lawful vote of the legally appointed electors of a state. If the two Houses do not agree, the objection will not be upheld, and the vote will be counted.

It is also important to not that these are not rules, but rule provision guidelines that can be unilaterally modified by the House and Senate individually.

Consider if the tables were turned and we lived in bizarro universe where Kerry stole the Presidency - In the height of the 'spin zone' of post-Election Day objections brought by 'sore loser' Rethugs to combat what they called a stolen Kerry Presidency, you would see this exact legal argument being put forth somewhere in the Freep 'Bush Won' camp, to extend debate and present their evidence and testimony. If in that alternate universe they controlled House and Senate, I GUARANTEE the time allocation would be radically modified, as it is a logical interpretation of this code that could be used to exploit a dominated Congress.

[k8conant]

11. That's two hours for each state to whose votes...

objections are offered.

[IndyPriest]

13. Not quite, k8.

"When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of ANY electoral vote OR votes from any State..." (emphasis added). In theory, at least, EACH electoral vote from OH can be contested. Two hours each.

Procedurally, will that happen.... My bet is it's going to take the Congress a day or more to figure out how to handle the objection(s) before they actually get to it/them.

[zann725]

14. That's the first time I heard...two hours for each contested EV/State?

If Repugs tried to push it through too quickly, would Filibustering also be possible? Since Filibustering hasn't been 'outlawed' yet. Or is that only for contesting the passage of a Bill?

[Doctor O]

17. The process is already laid out. They do not need any time

to figure out how to handle the challenge. They recess, debate the challenge for 2 hours, and then vote. No interpretation is needed by them.

[IndyPriest]

18. AH, but do you think any interpretation will be OFFERED them?

And once THAT question gets loose, all bets are off. Or, rather I should say, some bets will be ON!

[Doctor O]

20. Once the challenge or objection is made, it must be made in writing with

the reasons, and then submitted to the joint session. In the joint session, there will be no debate allowed.
The houses retreat to their respective where their is a maximum allowed debate time of two hours, Each member has 5 minutes to present their argument. At the end of the two hours the house must vote to accept or reject. If no interpretation is given with this time, they have lost the opportunity. Then both houses must vote to reject the EV, if not they are accepted and they move on.
We can make up all we want about the rultes or how we want them to read, but the above are the rules and they do not allow any other alternatives.

[BreakForNews]

19. Two Hours per State

Reading it like this:

"When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of

ANY electoral vote OR votes

from any State..."

[FreepFryer]

21. Hi BreakForNews!

Love your site...

But PLEASE lose the curvy Heavy-Metal-esque babe from the cover. For crying out loud, no woman's nipples get that hard over news, even news about Jude Law.

If I'm any example, it tends to turn off the female vote. And that's 51% right there!

She can go on some internal 'mens club' spankforum for all I care, but it gave me the skeeves something fierce.

[BreakForNews]

24. ThunderGirl.... u mean...lol

Some love it, some not.
Only complaint has been from ?men? lol

[FreepFryer]

25. I do love your site tho -

'BreakForNews' has made a big difference in this grassroots investigation. Good job! :)

[Vektor]

33. Agreed - the ho has to go...

I'm sorry, BreakforNews, but I took one look at that and pretty much didn't go any further. It sort of cheapens the legitimate news portion of your site. Just being honest. I don't mean to pick on you, but I cringe at seeing an otherwise good source of news tarnished by such imagery. We have SO few legitimate sources, after all.

[drm604]

37. BreakForNews, I like ThunderGirl...

but that's probably just my male hormones speaking. Objectively, I think that the others are probably right and that she is out of place there.

[KoKo]

27. Agree....the "babe" turned me off. I felt you weren't serious are were

looking for a "certain type" viewer for your site. :eyes: That's okay...but I couldn't get past that to read more...sorry..

[Alizaryn]

22. Good point!

[k8conant]

38. Hadn't thought of 2 hours PER VOTE = 2 times 20...

However, I just read this:

http://www.caef.us/objecting.html

"However, in 1873, before enactment of the law now in force, the joint session agreed, without objection and for reasons of convenience, to entertain objections with regard to two or more states before the two houses met separately to consider any of them."

:-(

[ConstitutionGuy]

29. Individual Objections Yes, 'Guidelines' No!

I agree that a procedural ploy could be hatched to drag out the process by objecting to individual electors. A reading of the statute might allow for repeated objections to individual electors from a single state but I don't think the chair would allow it and probably make a ruling that all objections to any electors from any state be considered under a single objection. From the way I read it, the chair does not call for objections until all of the electoral votes from a state have been submitted to the tellers and announced by the chair:

"and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any."

However, I believe it is manifestly incorrect that these are procedural 'guidelines'. They are THE law - Title 3, United States Code. Is there a lawyer out there that can present a convincing legal analysis that "after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate" is a guideline and not a legal mandate?

[rodeodance]

7. well, guess it time to pray to the asteroid goddess!!

[Helga Scow Stern]

26. Yes, to Vesta, for upholding the integrity of the electoral process;

to Pallas-Athena for being worthy adversaries in battle and not being duped or discouraged, but winning, even against impossible odds; to Juno for empowerment of the disempowered; and to Ceres, so that what is nourished is what is worthy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

8. hey welcome!

where in FL is your mom the mayor? what's the buzz down there on their voting situation?

[Quakerfriend]

10. Hey, brdbus4 welcome to DU!

:bounce: :toast: :hi: :headbang: :bounce:

That's nice that your Mom is a mayor in the sunshine state! I know it must be hard living with the Jebster! Give us some details of the mtg if you can remember any. We'de love to hear them!

[IndyPriest]

12. Um, Jeb may HOPE that FLorida is not contested but he

has nothing to say about it in the end. There ARE other reasons FL probably won't come up. Almost all of the attention about Jan. 6 -- unfortunately -- has been about OH.

[zann725]

15. And now since New Mexico's being recounted...

n/t

[Doctor O]

16. NM is not being recounted. Cobb is still fighting for it to

happen. State Supreme Court uphed decisin it was going to cost him 1.4 million, and he is now fighting that decision.

[bemis12]

30. It was always going to cost that much

They're only complaining about having to pay it "up front".

[MandateThis]

31. We should write Bill Richardson....

he worried me before the election. He was asked on tv if he thought NM would go for Kerry and he said that he hoped Kerry and Edwards would stay out of NM the last few days before November 2 and leave it up to him. What did THAT mean? You know, red states get better treatment from bu$h, the "compassionate" mandate thief!!! Richardson said his state didn't need a recount??? What did HE get from bu$h and thugs??? I'm going to write him.

[roenyc]

34. he is fighting the recount!

that suprised me. i liked the guy. oh well. its like they are all banning together to keep this quiet. shhh. dont say a word. * stole it we all know just dont want to talk about our dirty laundry!
why are they fighting this so hard??

from cobb's site:

December 27, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact
New Mexico Recount Goes Back to Court

"Although, generally, voting machines can be cleared 30 days after the official certification of the vote, New Mexico law is clear that this can't happen when a recount has been initiated. The candidates have paid the deposit for the recount and we expect it to go forward, so any adjustment to the machines would be clearly inappropriate until the recount has been concluded," said Lowell Finley, one of the attorneys representing the candidates.

[bunny planet]

39. I know, Bill Richardson has been such a disappointment in this.

His Fraudulency's minions must have gotten to him, threatened to cut his
federal assistance down to nothing or some other nasty retribution if he supported the recount. To think he was under consideration for the VP slot on the ticket too. I think he may have made a big political mistake not standing up to the Repiglicons.

[Bill Bored]

23. They should contest ANY state that doesn't have a paper trail, etc.

And FLORIDA is at the top of that list!

[KoKo]

28. If FLA, NM, Ohio and Nevada could be protested....that would get some

attention. Given that Cobb is trying to get NM counted I would think it should defintely be contested. FLA because of Jeb will always be a long shot unless Wexler and Nelson would step up in the house and senate respectively.

If that happened the game would be on for us....:shrug:

[MandateThis]

32. Well, they messed with a bunch of states.........

California, Florida, NM, Colorado, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana and others I can't think of right now. Makes me think....if they had to play SO DAMN dirty....they don't have much support at all!!! We did NOT have the media and we won! Don't listen to any of the crap about "we need a candidate from the South, we need a Bill Clinton "feeling" candidate...bull crap!! Kerry was great!

[Quakerfriend]

35. So right Mandate This!

I can't stand hearing about how "lost" the democratic party is!!! We won in a landslide going away, plain and simple!!

And, we are not going away anytime soon!!:bounce:

[MandateThis]

41. Paper doesn't even mean that much.....

I wouldn't trust a piece of paper when "inside" the machine it could still count a vote for the other party. Many people think that they get to walk away with a receipt that says who they vote for. That's not true. That's against the law. I don't know why but it is. I'd like to go back to voting the old way with paper. They still do that in some countries.

[bones_7672]

36. If there's a contest (& that's a BIG IF) it'll be done in 2 hours.

The Senate and House will move to consolidate all the challenges into one, two hours debate, and PRESTO, Bush is re-elected. But I do not expect any Senator to contest, so Conyers will be left out in the cold.

[MandateThis]

42. go ahead and be doubtful. I am not.

[Peace Patriot]

43. Expect full on BushCon thuggery...

...that's how they got no paper trail, and secret, proprietary source code owned by Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson. Tom Delay thuggery. So they for sure will try to shut it down as quickly as possible, and they have all the raw power they need to do so.

If all Democratic Senators stand up, it will be great. I will weep for joy! That's probably the only way they can get a good debate, and/or grudging attention from BushCon lapdogs. But any one of them, or several, standing up, will earn our undying loyalty.

Jan. 6 is just one step in recovering our democracy--if we really mean to recover our democracy. If we do mean to do that, then we will not be defeated by anything that happens on Jan. 6, or any failure of leadership. Every step forward--Conyers challenging, for instance--is a victory, given that we have almost no real representation in DC these days.

Whatever happens, we should use Jan. 6 to inform the maximum number of Kerry voters possible. Most don't know the election was stolen, because TV networks fiddled the Exit Polls on 11/2 (didn't give true numbers, which showed that Kerry won--"adjusted" the numbers with BushCon electronic feed of "official results," making it appear that Bush won both the Exit Polls and the "official results." Without that critical info, that there were two conflicting numbers--as they had in the Ukraine--Americans couldn't know what was going on.)

After Jan. 6, we have to work on the ground, locally, for paper ballots/hand counts (or at the least, a paper trail and open source code). (Don't trust Congress on "election reform"! No, no, no!)

It's taken the oil companies and their brethren in the global corporate world about three decades to complete their takeover of the U.S.A. (longer, if you follow certain trends back through the Depression, and before--empowering of these financial gangs). It's not going to be easy to take our country back from them. For a while, they benefited us. No more! Now they have no loyalty and no patriotism.

They are panicked by the oil supply drying up, and are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of us (and everyone else) for use of the last reserves. That's the main reason they put their puppet Bush in the White House--to prevent us from switching to alternative fuels (or finding some other way to get around, and alternative manufacturing processes), and they also want to keep us from inflicting any kind of tax or regulation on their activity.

It is all very, very, very unsustainable--and in the case of Iraq, murderous.

Can we throw them off? It's the fight of the New Millennium, for sure. The American Revolution all over again. That's what we're in. And we actually have more power than maybe we realize--or else they wouldn't go to so much trouble to propagandize us, and create illusions of democracy. Why do they bother to steal our votes, and try to maintain this farce? Because the truth constantly threatens to break through, and Americans have a long history of freedom, and of freedom struggles, that strengthens us and gives us hope. We have known democracy and what it can do. We will not soon forget it.

The key is waking people up, informing them. People will create their own solutions, and will band together (as we did in electing Kerry!) to recover political power.

Jan. 6 is a beginning, not an end.

Actually, the beginning was on 11/3, when DUers (and others) refused to accept another stolen election.

[tx_dem41]

44. You are not wrong. n/t