Reply #60: Admitting the grave mistake they made on Jan 6th 2001 & 2005 would. . . [View All]

On January 6th, when the members of the House and the Senate convene to count the electoral votes, it is more than a mere formality or ministerial responsibility; they have a positive duty to judge the legality of those votes. It is up to each member of Congress to independently judge whether or not electors are lawfully appointed.

Justice Breyer provided instructed them on their duty in to Bush v. Gore.

531 U. S. ____ (2000), Breyer, J., dissenting, Bush v. Gore (from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html - emphasis added)

The legislative history of the Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:

“The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal.” H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).

The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:

“The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented.” 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).

Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.

To count “only legal votes” they MUST make a judgment -- a moral decision grounded in the intent, not the letter, of the law; a decision that upholds the principle of consent.

The intent of our election laws is to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. The principle of consent demands that we have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted.

To represent “the people in their sovereign capacity” each and every member of congress has a duty to make a judgment that enforces our rights by objecting to the electors from any state that has failed to meet their obligation to conduct a fair election that instills confidence in the results.