OK. If one Senator joins Conyers, we'll have a vote. NOW...

Can someone explain why Democrats will vote to ACCEPT Ohio's electors?

I mean, the excuses on the Iraq vote were:

1.) After 9-11, we HAD to look strong on Defense...
2.) We believed the President and the CIA
3.) We were just giving him a bargaining chip. Who knew the damn fool would invade?

So, how does this vote become a wedge issue? :shrug:

Also, is the Senate vote subject to cloture? Can there be a filibuster?

and 5 minutes per person no more.

...and others have posted details, here, and they can be found in the archives as well as elsewhere.

But, if even one Senator joins Congressman Conyers (and his colleagues), the statement "all hell breaks loose" will be an understatement, imho.

Peace.

"Its 7 Jan 2005: do you know who your president is?"

a big YAWN, and a few "oh there they go again, can't handle losing" comments, and not even a blip in the giant MSM Blackout of '04.

It's so obvious to me this thing was stolen BIG TIME, and frustrating as hell so many refuse to see it.

Let's say that the official results of the election showed that Kerry won. Let's say on Jan 6th a couple of House Republicans and one R Senator stand up and challenge a state or two. Let's also say that we Democrats do not think that significant fraud occurred or that the Republicans have any proof that would stand up in court that fraud occurred.

What would be your reaction to the above scenario? I'd venture to guess that you would tend to dismiss it as another one of the Republican antics, sore loser syndrome, etc. that in no way detracts from Kerry's mandate. Right?

Why do you think the reaction to Democratic reps/senator doing the same would be different?

The EC votes are read state by state.

They are accpeted or.

They get to a state such as Ohio and a Rep and Sen object. There is no debate in joint session.

Both Houses withdraw to separate chambers.

They have two hours to debate, 5 min for eeach person in that time period. At the end of this they vote to accept or reject the objection.

Both houses must vote to support the objection, at the end of two hours, they meet and if only one house has voted to accept the objection, the Electoral Votes are certified for the state are accepted and they move to the next state.

So while it is a bit more elaborate, not much.

...it might get just a bit more complicated if members of the HR and Senate are forced to realize that if they don't vote to support the objection, in their respective chambers, they will be aiding and abetting a rather large number of crimes -- because I doubt that Congressman Conyers is urging his colleagues in the HR and Senate to object based on 'sore loser' types of innuendo and fantasy.

We'll see; it's less than 7 days away, now. Re-runs are likely to be required viewing for 'civics classes' for decades.

Peace and Happy New Year; the first few days of 2005 may be some of the most exciting, ever.

No senator will join Conyers. Kennedy, Hilary, Edwards, Kerry, all have skeletons in their closet and Bush has the keys. All corrupted to the core.

their status as senators, a rare privilege of 100 persons out of
300 million. They will not be inclined to make fools of themselves
by voting for something for which they have no concrete proof in
their hands. This is the stark reality.

I am not implying there was no hankypanky in 2004 elections. All I
am saying is without proof, none of these lawyer-senators will vote
for objecting the acceptance of Ohio electors. I am not gonna get
my hopes up only to be shoved down the cliff of disappointment.

Even before this election, I'm told that the biggest cheers at Kerry rallies came with the "This time every vote will be counted" promise.

I just don't see the downside of getting behind vote reform.

who think Kerry meant those words.

The 2 houses don't have to decide anything immediately:
In 1876, there were disputes about which electoral votes to accept, due to allegations of voter intimidation by the Democrats. Rutherford B. Hayes was the Republican from Ohio, He was generally considered a decent, honest person, and his opponent a pompous ass. (Sound familiar?) The 2 houses could not agree, so they appointed a committee of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicsns, 5 Supreme Court Justices. Both houses were represented on the committee, with 5 from each house. Eventually, the committee did decide to accept the electors for Hayes, who was inaugurated in early March.
In other words, the Congress and the Senate CAN decide to investigate further: there is precedent to do so.

edited to add link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x211360

Presidents were ALWAYS inaugurated in March.

You are factually mistaken. The vote must be taken on January 6.

Here's the proof for you.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

That shows when the oath was taken.

what I was proving is that things weren't "delayed" until March, as the poster is indicating. Presidents were ALWAYS inaugurated in March back then.

But the January 6 day is certainly set in law. This is the Federal law for you. Notice the absence of any "outs".

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/3/chapters/1/sections/section_15.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/provisions.html#15

§ 15. Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; 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. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

My memory is there were two sets of electoral votes & they couldn't agree on which ones to accept, so they formed a committee to investiage the charges. Look it up!

The precedent you site occurred before the adoption of the electoral procedures in Title 3 United States Code. The lawful procedures described in detail in this law were adopted specifically in response to these earlier examples you site, and for the specific purpose of precluding such drawn out and contentious results. Two hours to debate the objections on any one state - maximum. No argument allowed in the joint session and the presiding officer in each of the separate houses in compelled to call the question after that time: "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 present day law makes the prior precedent moot. I don't know the entire legislative history but this has been the law since at least 1948.

...going on the record stating that they do or do not believe that the election was free and legitimate.


Sort of an "I don't believe cigarette smoke is addictive moment"...

If only a few in the House and Senate stand up, they will be savaged by the Republicans and the press.

If it's a united front, and if the facts are then presented in a cogent fashion, we have an issue and a chance at regaining our democracy.

A "Profiles in Courage" moment.

Don't forget that the 14th Amendment Civil Rights challenge takes on a totally different dimension quite apart from the certification challenge, as does the ESS/Triad national conspiracy angle. Of course, recounts are underway or will be underway elsewhere soon, too.

January 6 is very important but a loss there does not guarantee that the shrub wins!

is in? Are you saying that up until Jan. 20 there's still a chance even if we lose on Jan. 6? I understand the other points you are making but thought once it was all certified on the 6th Shsrub was in? How does that work with the way the law is set up?

We find one Senator that has nothing to lose. Like Byrd, he's old, he's known to be outspoken, the Reds all think he's crazy already, I don't think he's running again...anyone else like that? Isn't Kennedy getting ready to retire soon?

We may be able to prove disenfranchisement, allowing an equal number of representatives being removed from Congress, since this year we had a hot line to record all problems, we would have an actual percentage of people not allowed to vote, who were eligible.

Gee, I have to work on those run-on sentences don't I?