Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (5154)	12/7/2000 8:44:54 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

An excellent point. Wasn't that mentioned, or hinted at, in the initial case before the FSC? And if in doubt, the US House of Representatives can intercede? This gets more bizarre by the day.

To: Ilaine who wrote (5154)	12/7/2000 9:54:32 PM
From: TraderGreg	Respond to of 6710

I have read that incredible 3usc15 myself and got a headache. I still think they are covered. A slate endorsed by the Governor is in DC right now. Any other slate could not be chosen by the Congress even if the Congress was Democratic because in the event there is a conflict between two slates of electors, the Congress must, not may or shall, but must pick the one signed by the Gov. TG

To: Ilaine who wrote (5154)	12/7/2000 11:12:55 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

OK--here's the pertinent portions of Sec 15 of 3 USC Ch.1: (I will keep it in quotes, my comments unquoted) I am starting at the point where the electoral votes have been counted in the joint session of Congress. "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." OK, so as long as the Electors are appointed in accordance with Sec 6, which simply talks about the Gov authorizing them and that they are delivered on time, which has already occurred. It then goes on to discuss conflicts. "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." OK, at this point, if the HOUSE and the SENATE agree which slate of electoral votes is legitimate, they make the selection. But the Senate is 50-50, so what happens if the HOuse picks Jeb's slate and the Senate picks a Gore slate created by the court? If you read nothing else, read what is in BOLD. "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." I was wrong earlier when I said MUST...it was shall. I assume SHALL is legalese for MUST? NOtice that the legislature need not get involved here. There is a Governor blessed slate already and any other slate that attempts to replace that slate SHALL be rejected by the Congress because it is not the one blessed by the Governor. TG