MARYLAND wants to change the rules after the game is lost.
https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-maryland-refusing-electoral-college-hillary-given-presidency-as-more-states-follow/
3 USCS § 8. Manner of voting
The
electors shall vote for President and
Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the
Constitution.
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
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 [3 USCS § 6] 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 [3 USCS § 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 [3 USCS § 5], 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.
What we have here are the means by which the "republican"-controlled
congress can allow or disallow any STATE's electoral vote. Thus, a
STATE that announces its vote as dependent not on the party winning that
STATE's vote but rather on winning the "popular vote" is subject to
objection and disqualification.
This author expects, though, that the problem runs much deeper, legally
speaking. The "electors" selected in those STATEs would have either
to abide by the oaths taken at the time the then-existing threshold
qualifications were applied, i.e., the qualifications set at the time of
the primaries, which oaths would recognize the electoral
perspective, or to be treated as disqualified.
It'd be some study into "party" by-laws and STATE statutes to determine
how the "electors" would be replaced. Since the rules would have
changed mid-game/stream, there's some question as to whether the people
would be involved in the re-selection process or whether the "party" would
just act without "popular" participation. Where the STATE and "the
party" act in concert to change the rules mid-game/stream without
subjecting that proposal to the people in that STATE (presuming the people
are the ones relied upon to select the "electors"), there'll then be a
"federal question" as to whether that constitutes interfering with
agreements, namely the agreements entered into by those intending to
qualify initially. That then raises an issue of standing,
because the people most likely to object are those who are not directly
affiliated with that "party." Although, since we're talking about
filling an office that is subject not to STATE law but US law, there may
be a basic federal question just because the rules were changed
mid-game/stream. It's this sort of "change of position" mid-way that
gives rise to some "ancient" (very settled) concepts of "estoppel."
The practical upshot for MARYLAND isn't a practical change in the
outcome. And, should other STATES for which the "electoral" vote
already is "called" for a womam who very likely did die in Sept. 2016,
again, the practical change, if such mid-game/stream rule changes are
allowed, is none. What changes is what happens four years from now,
and, by then, God may have so intervened that the notion of "electoral
college" disintegration (at the hands of the communists) will no longer be
an issue in anyone's mind.
This is just one more way to keep things disrupted through the "end of
year spending season." The commercial solution is to spend very
little (none where possible) and absolutely not to increase one's debt
obligations.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal
Reality
Dallas Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
Legal
Reality Email Resource page: http://home.earthlink.net/~track21_comm/LegalReality/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment