Main Menu

Increasing the Voeltzage

It’s alive!

Frankenstein Monster and electrican sparks

Attorney Larry Klayman has attached electrodes to the neck of the Voeltz v. Obama lawsuit, poured on the juice, and re-animated the twice-dead legal action. I’m not sure how the villagers of Tallahassee will respond to this monster stalking it’s courtrooms yet again.

Klayman got into trouble with an earlier argument that Obama had been nominated in the Florida Democratic Primary, when in fact there was no Florida Democratic Primary, and Obama was not “nominated” for office. This time around Klayman attacks the election of Barack Obama in Florida, but technically that isn’t true either. The President of the United States is voted on by the Electoral College, which meets December 17 and the President is not actually elected until the election is Certified by a joint session of Congress, and that happens on January 6 of 2013, and not in Florida.

The complaint is brought pursuant to the Florida statute on the contest of elections, §102.168. Here are the applicable requirements for challenging an election:

(1) … the certification of election … of any person to office … may be contested in the circuit court by … any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy….

(3) …The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute….

The issue here, as it was in the first challenge, is whether or not Barack Obama was elected. The election actually chooses members of the Electoral College, and their eligibility is not being challenged.

Certainly allegations of voting irregularities are covered by the statute because in effect members of the Electoral College from Florida are elected. The President, not so much.

The complaint summarizes the usual spurious Vattelist argument that US Presidents must have two US citizen parents. Klayman does one thing so utterly stupid that I could hardly believe it, arguing that Vattel’s book, The Law of Nations, was written into the Constitution in the phrase from Article 1, Section 8:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

In the US Constitution, every noun is capitalized, but the word “the" is not in this clause, meaning it’s not the title of a book, and of course there is no mention of including Vattel’s book by reference in the Constitution from the records of the debate of the Federal Convention of 1787, any more than it references Blackstone’s chapter, “On Offences Against the Law of Nations.”

I give Klayman marks at least for being concise, 7 pages total.

, ,

84 Responses to Increasing the Voeltzage

  1. avatar
    US Citizen November 30, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    Only 7 pages?
    Well it would more if someone painted a pancake on Larry’s head.

  2. avatar
    sponson November 30, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    The Good Doctor deserves a medal for keeping us abreast of these developments as the hour of the irrelevancy of Birtherism grows near. Let him know you appreciate what he does.

  3. avatar
    Lupin November 30, 2012 at 3:16 am #

    It’s shameful that a legal treatise can be hijacked in such a fashion by meretricious, self-serving attorneys who should know better.

  4. avatar
    US Citizen November 30, 2012 at 5:03 am #

    He’s not actually hijacked any legal treatise any more than a person standing at the gates of Fort Knox with a slingshot is robbing the place.

  5. avatar
    Lupin November 30, 2012 at 6:35 am #

    US Citizen: He’s not actually hijacked any legal treatise any more than a person standing at the gates of Fort Knox with a slingshot is robbing the place.

    Point taken. :-) Still, it rankles me.

  6. avatar
    bovril November 30, 2012 at 6:54 am #

    Of course KKKlayman as well as the rest of the Birferstani do both cherry pick AND ignore

    Heres what Vattel himself said

    3. Definition of the law of nations.

    The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.

    Then there is the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia to be precise

    “That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates). ” Justice Scalia, SOSA V. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN.

    So, Vattel himsef is very careful to say what the LON is and is not and Scalia re-iterates it as a contemporary item

  7. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    US Citizen: He’s not actually hijacked any legal treatise any more than a person standing at the gates of Fort Knox with a slingshot is robbing the place.

    Birfers as Goldfinger :D

  8. avatar
    The Magic M November 30, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    bovril: So, Vattel himsef is very careful to say what the LON is and is not

    He also clearly shows where he is relating his personal opinion, such as this important birther point:

    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen

    So obviously birthers don’t just require us to believe in time machines but also that Vattel’s own word is Divine Law.

    Then again, when millions of people believe the Bible was written by God himself (who obviously likes to talk about himself in the third person*), this comes as no big surprise.

    ____
    * Seriously, how can a book *not* starting with “In the beginning, I created…” (or the pluralis majestatis “We created”) be considered an autobiography?

  9. avatar
    The Magic M November 30, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    JPotter: Birfers as Goldfinger

    Goldfinger wasn’t trying to rob Fort Knox (which is technically impossible given the sheer number of lorries required to transport the loot away) but to radioactively contaminate the gold so his own would rise in value.

    However, unlike Goldfinger, birthers don’t have a brilliant secret plan hidden behind their obviously stupid plans.

  10. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    The Magic M: Goldfinger wasn’t trying to rob Fort Knox (which is technically impossible given the sheer number of lorries required to transport the loot away) but to radioactively contaminate the gold so his own would rise in value.

    Believe me, I know. The parallels lie in the monologuing, inane laughter, unwarranted hubris (“I expect you to die, Obotds!”), and tendency to destroy flunkies, cannibalize their own (traitors!), and ultimately do themselves in in a fit of pique, as they just don’t know when to quit.

    And, of course, birfers tend to be crazy old white men, as was Goldfinger …. and also obsessed with gold.

    Another point, the scene on the porch of the Kentucky estate, in which Bond explains to Goldfinger the lunacy of attempting to rob Ft. Knox, and calculates the required logistics, to which Goldfinger intimates his true intention (with his reeeeeally nutty, convoluted plan), is a classic birfer/obot exchange.

    Granted, so far as I know, no birthers have been sucked out of airplne windows. Here’s hopin’.

    But, your point is well taken … Goldfinger was far more successful than any birfer ever will be!

  11. avatar
    john November 30, 2012 at 11:17 am #

    “The issue here, as it was in the first challenge, is whether or not Barack Obama was elected. The election actually chooses members of the Electoral College, and their eligibility is not being challenged.”

    I don’t remember voting for 29 different people on the ballot for Florida, just 2 choices and perhaps others, Romney and Obama.

    This is just a technicality that just being used try to throw out the case. Voeltz has “perfect standing” to bring this case forward under the statute.

    All remember, the Obama was placed on the ballot and the proper documentation was completed to that effect. Obama – AS A CANDIDATE – was placed on the ballot – NOT 29 ELECTORALS AND NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THOSE ELECTORALS.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M November 30, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    JPotter: no birthers have been sucked out of airplne windows

    Well, Romney at least wanted to give them the chance. ;)

  13. avatar
    Whatever4 November 30, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    bovril:
    Of course KKKlayman as well as the rest of the Birferstani do both cherry pick AND ignore

    Heres what Vattel himself said

    3. Definition of the law of nations.


    The Law of Nations is the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights.

    Irony meter alert — Many birthers also don’t believe in science.

  14. avatar
    john November 30, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    Last Monday, my Congressman spoke at my Tea Party. He is Republican and very upset Mitt Romney lost the election. He said he going the Washington the next day and opened the meeting up for thoughts and questions. I only had one question and request –

    I told my Congressman that he must and urge others to, file a WRITTEN OBJECTION with Joint Session of Congress in January. I told him Mitt Romney can still win and he had that power of objection. Although, I told him I can’t garratee a positive result, I said that Barbara Boxer objected in the 2004 election and got overwhelming support.

    My Congressman’s response is that was unaware of such power and would look it up.

  15. avatar
    john November 30, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    Although standing is Klayman’s case is nearly perfect (Only court corruptness can deny it on that) his complaint is weak on the NBC argument. Although, I still believe the NBC argument, it’s no going to go anywhere with the court and has been denied numerous times. Klayman should have argued that Obama was born in Kenya so he could get discovery.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    I appreciate your argument that it’s a technicality, but legislation is all about technicalities. No matter whether the electors were voted on, or the candidates, the fact of the matter that Obama wasn’t “elected to office” in Florida, nor in any state. The election happens next month. I personally don’t think that the Florida Legislature intended that the statute they passed included eligibility determination for the President of the United States.

    john: This is just a technicality that just being used try to throw out the case. Voeltz has “perfect standing” to bring this case forward under the statute.

  17. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    john: My Congressman’s response is that was unaware of such power and would look it up.

    Would you characterize him as a “Tea Party Candidate”? They’ve been plucking quite a few straight out of the ranks of the Young Republicans. Unfamiliarity with the Constitution goes with the role.

    Did his ignorance assure you, particularly is it seemed genuine? Or did it strike you as a dodge?

    Do you generally recognize when you’re being mollified?

    ( ;) )

  18. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    john: I told him Mitt Romney can still win

    Well, he WAS at the White House yesterday…..

    My understanding is that if it is a matter of the President’s qualifications for office, rather than something to do with the electoral votes, then the 12th and 20th Amendments specify that the presidency goes to the VP. So, say hello to President Joe Biden, unless you can prove he was not born in Scranton, PA (I’ve been there and everybody in town bears a family resemblance to Biden).

    john: I said that Barbara Boxer objected in the 2004 election and got overwhelming support.

    So, how did the Kerry presidency work out?

  19. avatar
    Sudoku November 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Klayman’s case is not in the same zip code as perfect. His plaintiff may have standing to contest the eligibility of someone elected in FL, but that doesn’t mean Obama was elected in FL. The whole electoral college, constitutional stuff.

    Claiming Obama was born in Kenya is not enough for a judge to grant discovery.

    john:
    Although standing is Klayman’s case is nearly perfect(Only court corruptness can deny it on that) his complaint is weak on the NBC argument.Although, I still believe the NBC argument, it’s no going to go anywhere with the court and has been denied numerous times.Klayman should have argued that Obama was born in Kenya so he could get discovery.

  20. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    john: Klayman should have argued that Obama was born in Kenya

    But than he would have to provide some evidence. Since there isn’t any, he would have failed at that. Remember in Act I scene VI of Voeltz v. Obama, he told Judge Lewis that if he was allowed to amend his complaint he would be able to provide evidence the President was not born in the US. He never did though.

  21. avatar
    misha marinsky November 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    john: He is Republican and very upset Mitt Romney lost the election.

    I hope he breaks the glass column of a sphygmomanometer. He just shouldn’t get the mercury on anyone else – just his clothes.

  22. avatar
    Thrifty November 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Birthers continually display a profound misunderstanding of the rules of presidential succession. There is no scenario now which will put Mitt Romney in the White House prior to 2017. If somehow Barack Obama were stopped, Joe Biden would become president. If Obama AND Biden were stopped, John Boehner would become president, which I guess the Birthers wouldn’t mind. Of course, after Boehner there’s Harry Reid, then a list of Obama appointed cabinet members. Then I think it falls to members of either the House or Senate by order of seniority.

    But Mitt Romney, being a former state governor and currently holder of no elected office, is nowhere in there.

    Scientist: My understanding is that if it is a matter of the President’s qualifications for office, rather than something to do with the electoral votes, then the 12th and 20th Amendments specify that the presidency goes to the VP. So, say hello to President Joe Biden, unless you can prove he was not born in Scranton, PA (I’ve been there and everybody in town bears a family resemblance to Biden).

  23. avatar
    nbc November 30, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    This is just a technicality that just being used try to throw out the case. Voeltz has “perfect standing” to bring this case forward under the statute.

    ROTFL… Yes.. A technicality, like standing… And yet lethal to the suit.

  24. avatar
    john November 30, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president. Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney. I think the scenario birthers would want is situation where Obama fails to get 270 electoral votes. In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

  25. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    john:
    I said that Barbara Boxer objected in the 2004 election and got overwhelming support.

    Yes, if you consider one vote in the Senate (Boxer’s own vote) and 31 votes in the House to be “overwhelming support.”

    And Boxer only objected to Ohio’s electoral votes.

  26. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    JPotter: Would you characterize him as a “Tea Party Candidate”? They’ve been plucking quite a few straight out of the ranks of the Young Republicans. Unfamiliarity with the Constitution goes with the role.

    Based upon John’s prior posts, he probably lives in Lake County, Florida, which means that his U.S. representative most likely is Richard Nugent, who is not quite a Tea Partier. In fact, Nugent was challenged by a Tea Party candidate in a primary this year.

  27. avatar
    Daniel November 30, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    john:
    Last Monday, my Congressman spoke at my Tea Party.He is Republican and very upset Mitt Romney lost the election.

    I’m a Republican and I’m upset that Romney lost too. Of course I also recognize that you’re a freaking loon, John. Unlike you, I’m also not a sore loser, so I can accept that the vote didn’t go my way.

    I suspect your Congressman was just being more polite to you than I am.

  28. avatar
    LW November 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    john: My Congressman’s response is that was unaware of such power and would look it up.

    I think you left out the backing slowly away.

  29. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm #

    Rickey: Based upon John’s prior posts, he probably lives in Lake County, Florida, which means that his U.S. representative most likely is Richard Nugent, who is not quite a Tea Partier. In fact, Nugent was challenged by a Tea Party candidate in a primary this year.

    Thanks, Rickey. I don’t know where that ‘other’ john is from. I was being generous, acknowledging that there are indeed young pups in Congress who might be that clueless.They certainly shouldn’t be, bur expertise is no requirement to hold office.

    As I was intimating, and others have echoed, john was almost certainly being mollycoddled by a nonconfrontational speaker. His Congressperson should have more spine and conviction … but alas they are only human.

  30. avatar
    JPotter November 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    john: If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president. Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney. I think the scenario birthers would want is situation where Obama fails to get 270 electoral votes. In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

    Please, explain how this would happen. Explain to me how Democratic electors will be convinced to risk criminal penalty by failing to carry out their office? An office that they actively sought?

  31. avatar
    BillTheCat November 30, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Wow, John is even more delusional than Judson Phillips and WND 0.o

    Yeh John, go with that strategy, it’s sure to be a winner :D

  32. avatar
    chancery November 30, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    john:
    If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president. * * *

    Skunk!

  33. avatar
    gorefan November 30, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    JPotter: Explain to me how Democratic electors will be convinced to risk criminal penalty by failing to carry out their office?

    Montgomery Sibley thinks he can sue them to not vote. LOL

  34. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    john:
    If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president.Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney.I think the scenario birthers would want is situation where Obama fails to get 270 electoral votes.In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

    And how do you propose to keep Obama from getting 270 electoral votes? Klayman filed his lawsuit in state court. Even if he won (which he won’t), the best outcome he could hope for is that Florida’s electors would be prohibited from voting for Obama. But a ruling in Florida’s courts has no effect upon the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.

    So let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that Klayman wins and Florida’s electors can’t vote for Obama. Instead of getting 332 electoral votes, he gets 303 electoral votes.

    Can you say President Obama?

  35. avatar
    misha marinsky December 1, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    john: Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney.

    That is ridiculous. The House would elect Seamus.

    It’s been done for years in Rabbit Hatch, Kentucky:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Hash,_Kentucky

  36. avatar
    JPotter December 1, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    john: In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

    Piling on a bit more …. no, you are wrong about the process. But, even if the electoral college went haywire and it was thrown to the Red House, don’t be so quick to assume it would be rMoney. The way that guy went out, he’s toast. He’s in a contest with The Shrub for Most Damaged Goods. It could be fun to speculate who they might go for, but it’s only idle speculation.

  37. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 1, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    john:
    If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president.Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney.I think the scenario birthers would want is situation where Obama fails to get 270 electoral votes.In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

    Actually, Obama just needs a majority of the electoral votes. So, you’d actually have to remove 126 electoral votes from the Obama column in order to get rid of the Obama victory. Not going to happen.

    2. Even if you did do that, Obama won the majority of the States. So, even if it did goto the house, then you’d have a bunch of Representatives who are beholden to their constituants saying, “I know you voted for Obama, but I know you really want me for Romney”. Remember, in that situation, each state in the House of Representatives is 1 vote. So, you’d need to get 2 states to go against what the majority of their constituants wanted, and elect Romney over Obama.

    Good luck with that.

  38. avatar
    donna December 1, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    of ALL the dumb birther continuously moving goal posts efforts, this is the most INSANE

    currently obama is beating mitt by over 4.5 million votes and by 50.92%/47.35% with only 24 states to certify their final results (ca & ny still have uncounted votes)

    so the “few” birthers by population standards are hoping to overturn that?

    in 04, bush thought he had a “mandate” and capital to spend when he had a 3 million vote margin and 286 electoral votes -

  39. avatar
    Thrifty December 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Or the Democrat electors pledged to vote for Obama vote for someone else. Are you proposing that, if the president-elect is not eligible, all electors are then obliged to vote for the other guy?

    You birthers hope for some farfetched, extreme long shot scenario to give you an escape from a 2nd Obama term, losing sight of the fact that even your extreme long shot scenario won’t work.

    john:
    If Obama doesn’t get a 270 majority electoral votes, then Romney would become president.Should Romney not be considered, the House would then elect the President which would be Romney.I think the scenario birthers would want is situation where Obama fails to get 270 electoral votes.In that case, the House votes and they would choose Romney.

  40. avatar
    Keith December 1, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    JPotter: It could be fun to speculate who they might go for, but it’s only idle speculation.

    Ron Paul?

    Gee, that was fun.

    For a nanosecond.

  41. avatar
    bovril December 3, 2012 at 4:17 am #

    The part I love with the Birfoon “constitutionalist” is that they have plainly never ACTUALLY read the Constitution.

    As an example, they apparently fail to grasp that the electors in the EC have been selected by the state parties and are invariably part of the “great and the good” of each party. Their votes are locked in, they number 332 (in Obama’s case) and they will all hand their votes over to be counted by the joint session.

    At that time Romney’s will also be counted and that’s the end of the story.

    There is no grey, it’s all very binary and nothing will stop the President remaining the President for his second term.

    Sure, a written objection to a states votes can be raised if a member of both houses raise one, but guess what, all that happens is the session is supended, they two houses go off, debate and vote and ONLY if both houses vote for it can that states votes be ignored.

    Think that the Senate is going to vote out Obama…well do ya John..?

    Now, if the Republican party had majorities in both houses, AND Obama had not won in the majority of states, there is a THEORETICAL way they could act in a truly totalitarian manner and override the vote.

    A senator and congressman could raise objections for sufficient numbers of states to drop the EC vote below 270 and both the Senate and Congress could collude to accept the objections.

    In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

    Each state delegation votes en bloc – each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not receive a vote.

    A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect.

    Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

    Of course, if a party did do such a thing, the outrage amongst the public would pretty much guarantee the destruction of the Republican party come the next elections.

  42. avatar
    The Magic M December 3, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Rickey: But a ruling in Florida’s courts has no effect upon the other 49 states and the District of Columbia.

    Well, birthers still believe in the domino effect – if one state (or just one judge in one court in one state) suddenly magically decided to turn to their side, all others (or at least enough others) would follow like an avalanche. Because we know they all really really want to and are just too shy to be the first. *facepalm*

    That’s the only reason they think that their constant failure of writing whiney letters to Congress and sheriffs and SOS’s and rehashing the same crap in every court in the country is actually going to work.
    They obviously ignore that anyone who publically went birther (and there were quite a few) did not suddenly generate widespread applause of “thanks you went first, now I dare say it, too!”, but rather the ridicule and failures they deserved.
    But we all know birfers never learn, just like odd numbers can never be even. It’s impossible even for an omnipotent being to change a birther’s mind.

  43. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Actually, Obama just needs a majority of the electoral votes. So, you’d actually have to remove 126 electoral votes from the Obama column in order to get rid of the Obama victory. Not going to happen.2. Even if you did do that, Obama won the majority of the States. So, even if it did goto the house, then you’d have a bunch of Representatives who are beholden to their constituants saying, “I know you voted for Obama, but I know you really want me for Romney”. Remember, in that situation, each state in the House of Representatives is 1 vote. So, you’d need to get 2 states to go against what the majority of their constituants wanted, and elect Romney over Obama.Good luck with that.

    Actually, Dunstvangeet, Obama’s having won 26 states in the general election has no effect beyond the electoral votes those wins produced. I haven’t checked the numbers for state delegations in the upcoming Congress, but I assume that Republicans control a majority of state delegations, as they control the overall chamber. So yeah, John’s right in that, if Obama were somehow deprived of enough electoral votes to fall beclow 270, then Romney theoretically would be elected. But ain’t gonna happen; Obama will win the 331 or so currently attributed to him.
    As for the ludicrous notion that a quorum is required for the electoral vote to count, the 24 states that voted for Romney all have attorneys general supposedly elected for their legal smarts. Any elector considering boycotting the Dec. 17 vote should check first with his/her state AG. I’d be totally shocked if a single one would not tell any wavering elector that the quorum requirement refers only to a House vote in the event of no electoral college majority.
    If 17 GOP state electoral delegations were to boycott the Dec. 17 vote anyway, all this would mean is that Romney’s electoral vote would drop from the low 200s to the low 100s, or possibly lower. And future statistical reports on presidential elections would carry a footnote for the 2012 election, stating that Romney carried enough states to earn 207 electoral votes, or whatever his total was, but a misguided attempt to steal the election led to scores of electors declilng to vote, thus reducing his electoral college total to 100-some odd.

  44. avatar
    Rickey December 3, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    J.D. Reed: Actually, Dunstvangeet, Obama’s having won 26 states in the general election has no effect beyond the electoral votes those wins produced. I haven’t checked the numbers for state delegations in the upcoming Congress,but I assume that Republicans control a majority of state delegations, as they control the overall chamber. So yeah, John’s right in that, if Obama were somehow deprived of enough electoral votes to fall beclow 270, then Romney theoretically would be elected. But ain’t gonna happen; Obama will win the 331 or so currently attributed to him.

    If the House ever gets to select a President there will be an uproar, because the 12th Amendment is inherently undemocratic. Wyoming, which has a population of a little more than a half million, would have the same vote as California, which has almost 38 million residents.

    If you asked 1000 people at random how the 12th Amendments, you’d be lucky to find one who knows that answer.

  45. avatar
    Thrifty December 3, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    That has happened twice. Once in 1800, before the 12th amendment (and in fact the 12th amendment was ratified in response to what happened in 1800) and again in 1824. In 1824, Andrew Jackson actually received the most EC votes (99), but this was less than the 131 required to equal a majority of the 261 EC votes at the time. Nobody got a clear majority (there were 4 candidates who received EC votes). The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which elected John Quincy Adding-machine Adams.

    Rickey: If the House ever gets to select a President there will be an uproar, because the 12th Amendment is inherently undemocratic. Wyoming, which has a population of a little more than a half million, would have the same vote as California, which has almost 38 million residents.

  46. avatar
    Keith December 3, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    J.D. Reed: I haven’t checked the numbers for state delegations in the upcoming Congress, but I assume that Republicans control a majority of state delegations, as they control the overall chamber.

    Well in Arizona, the Democrats hold 5 of 9 seats. So there is a Romney ‘win’ that would go for Obama.

  47. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 3, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    JD Reed,

    1. The constitution says nothing about how many electoral votes need to be cast. It just says that a majority of the electoral votes that have been cast need to go to one person, or it goes to the house. If you reduce the number of votes cast, then you also reduce the number of votes that Obama needs to get the Presidency. 270 has nothing to do with anything. It’s just a majority of the number of ballots that can be cast. If there are only 270 ballots passed, then you only need 136 votes to get a majority, and that’s the number that you’d need to win the Presidency. It doesn’t matter that 268 ballots were not cast, it’s still a majority of the ballots cast.

    2. You’re presuming that representatives, who are theoretically beholden to their constituants, will go to the people who elected them and go, “I know you voted for Candidate A, but Candidate B is in my party! Therefore, I’m going to vote for Candidate B!” They’d be murdered the next time they sought re-election. Not being able to answer to their constituants, when the constituants of their state voted one way. I’d even have problem with Democrats doing that. You’re presuming alot of things.

  48. avatar
    dualer December 4, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    Florida statute 102.168 allows any voter or taxpayer, eligible to vote in the election, to challenge the “nomination or election of ANY PERSON to office”. To say that Obama was not elected is silly. The Elector vote represents the popular vote, and all of the Fla. Elector votes will go to Obama. The lawsuit contests the election of Barack Obama IN FLORIDA, if Mitt Romney had won in Fla. there would be no standing. The states control the election of the POTUS before the Electoral College, and Electors are under state authority, and ARE NOT members of the government– therefore Obama’s eligibility is not a political question. The election statutes of Florida refer to elections w/in the state of Fla. and Obama was elected President by the state of Fla., therefore plaintiff has perfect standing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Fla (Shevin v. Stone (1972)) has held the eligibilty for office is a judicial question.

    ALL of the toady court decisions protecting the Usurper (including Ankeny, which held that the ONLY QUESTION before it was whether the SOS had a duty to determine eligibility) first had to deny standing in order to give protection to constitutionally blind judges giving an opinion of what nbC means. This case, with perfect standing will give no such protection, and judges will have to lie with precedence. I have no illusions, but will make them all lie in the light of history, so that history will know who sold out the Republic. Obama is a domestic enemy, and so are his abettors on this forum.

  49. avatar
    Daniel December 4, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    I have no illusions, but will make them all lie in the light of history, so that history will know who sold out the Republic. Obama is a domestic enemy, and so are his abettors on this forum.

    You may not have illusions… But delusions you have in spades, if you Birthers feel that strongly, why not take it to court? Oh right… 150 plus court failures and zero successes. That must really sting…

  50. avatar
    Arthur December 4, 2012 at 3:06 am #

    dualer: I have no illusions, but will make them all lie in the light of history, so that history will know who sold out the Republic. Obama is a domestic enemy, and so are his abettors on this forum.

    Ok. Thanks for sharing that. In other news, an old man mistakes his shadow for a bear, a child is visited by the Tooth Fairy, and Taylor Swift has finally found “the one.”

  51. avatar
    gorefan December 4, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    dualer: ALL of the toady court decisions protecting the Usurper (including Ankeny, which held that the ONLY QUESTION before it was whether the SOS had a duty to determine eligibility)

    The only question in the Minor v. Happersett was whether the Constitution gave citizens the right to vote.

    “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”

  52. avatar
    Keith December 4, 2012 at 3:39 am #

    dualer: Florida statute 102.168 allows any voter or taxpayer, eligible to vote in the election, to challenge the “nomination or election of ANY PERSON to office”. To say that Obama was not elected is silly. The Elector vote represents the popular vote, and all of the Fla. Elector votes will go to Obama. The lawsuit contests the election of Barack Obama IN FLORIDA, if Mitt Romney had won in Fla. there would be no standing. The states control the election of the POTUS before the Electoral College, and Electors are under state authority, and ARE NOT members of the government– therefore Obama’s eligibility is not a political question. The election statutes of Florida refer to elections w/in the state of Fla. and Obama was elected President by the state of Fla., therefore plaintiff has perfect standing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Fla (Shevin v. Stone (1972)) has held the eligibilty for office is a judicial question.

    Incorrect.

    The Electors were elected. No one cast a vote for Barrack Obama for President in Florida or any other State. They voted for slates of representatives to the Electoral College.

    Furthermore, if if that rather pedantic argument fails (which it probably will not), President of the US is not a Florida State Office. Without looking it up, I think that it has already been shown that the law you refer to applies to State Offices, and there is a separate provision for Presidential elections.

  53. avatar
    dualer December 4, 2012 at 3:54 am #

    Ah, Gorefan, a noted Obama ball licker.

    The test applied to determine whether women had the right to vote, given by the 14A, was whether ANY citizen had the right to vote prior to the 14A, since the court determined that the 14A gave no new “rights”, only affirmed them (which has been upheld many times since).

    To apply that test the citizenship of the plaintiff w/o the aid of the 14A had to be determined (see page 166, “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership.”).

    Then the court determined that Minor was a natural born Citizen, by construing A2S1C4, defining natural born Citizen, and affirming that Minor did not need the 14A to be a US citizen, and thus made a judicial deternination in support of the hiolding– that NO ONE had the “right” to vote before the 14A— which is still the law today. A judicial determination in support of the holding is not merely dicta. , Ogilvie et al v. US., 519 U.S. 79 (1996))

    Nice Alinsky tactic usage though (use the enemy’s argument against them).Try again?

  54. avatar
    dualer December 4, 2012 at 4:19 am #

    “Incorrect.

    The Electors were elected. No one cast a vote for Barrack Obama for President in Florida or any other State. They voted for slates of representatives to the Electoral College.

    Furthermore, if if that rather pedantic argument fails (which it probably will not), President of the US is not a Florida State Office. Without looking it up, I think that it has already been shown that the law you refer to applies to State Offices, and there is a separate provision for Presidential elections.”

    Nice semantics Keith, in the true Obama bootlicker fashion. However:

    The Florida ECC has issued a certificate of election in Fla. to Barack H. Obama

    “It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicial cognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the election of a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dispose of them; and that its decision would be subject to review by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers, the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, the congress.
    But the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law or equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and this is a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was drawn in question as repugnant to such constitution and laws.” 146 US 1, 24

    Eligibility for ofice is a judicial determination, upon any challenge properly made (Shevin v. Stone).

    Besides, a judicial determination of ineligibility will inform the electors prior to the electoral college:

    “The nominees of the party for president and vice-president may have become disqualified, or peculiarly offensive not only to the electors but their constituents also. They should be free to vote for another, as contemplated by the Twelfth Amendment.” 343 US 214, 223

  55. avatar
    bovril December 4, 2012 at 4:34 am #

    Minor…………A womans voting right case, overturned by the 19th Amendment, relevance ZERO.

    WKA…….A citizenship case, specifically a born on the soil of non American citizen parents case where the government stated that it permitted said person to run for President. Relevance TOTAL

    Result……..WKA, born on soil, no citizen parents = NBC, could in fact run for President

    You, shit in one hand, bigotted ignorance in the other, which feels warmer..?

  56. avatar
    Lupin December 4, 2012 at 6:53 am #

    dualer: I have no illusions, but will make them all lie in the light of history, so that history will know who sold out the Republic.

    I always thought it was Jar Jar Binks.

  57. avatar
    Lupin December 4, 2012 at 6:59 am #

    dualer: Besides, a judicial determination of ineligibility will inform the electors prior to the electoral college:

    “The nominees of the party for president and vice-president may have become disqualified, or peculiarly offensive not only to the electors but their constituents also. They should be free to vote for another, as contemplated by the Twelfth Amendment.” 343 US 214, 223

    You are a crazy, crazy loser man. I kind of picture you as one of those smelly, disheveled guys handing out greasy leaflets outside the subway while ranting about something barely comprehensible.

    The reality is, Obama was elected, will be sworn in, will serve his term, while the GOP continues to disintegrate into a squabble between plutocrats and bigots. You can look forward to Hillary in 2016.

  58. avatar
    The Magic M December 4, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    dualer: Ah, Gorefan, a noted Obama ball licker.

    So, did the fetishists from ORYR finally find their way here? I’ve always wondered about the fixation with certain sexual acts and feces commonly found in birthers…

  59. avatar
    Scientist December 4, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    The Electors were elected. A court cannot bar elected officials from voting as they see fit. Courts can only act post hoc-they can invalidate laws passed by Congress, but they cannot bar Congress from voting for even a clearly unconstitutional law, Faithless elector laws can punish electors after the fact, but even those cannot prevent electors from voting as they see fit.

    Of course, it gives me great joy to see the sore losers parading around. Every effort they put into their useless attempts to deny reality only ensures that 8 years of Obama will be followed by 8 years of another Democrat. By 2024, the Republicans will either have learned or maybe the Whigs will make a comeback. But, Mitt Rmoney did gwet to the Oval Office last week, if only for lunch.

    The birther gyrations are even more entertaining in view of the fact that the Constitution they claim to love is crystal clear that if they somehow removed Obama, they would only get President Biden.

  60. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny December 4, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    dualer: Besides, a judicial determination of ineligibility will inform the electors prior to the electoral college:

    “The nominees of the party for president and vice-president may have become disqualified, or peculiarly offensive not only to the electors but their constituents also. They should be free to vote for another, as contemplated by the Twelfth Amendment.” 343 US 214, 223

    Haha! You’re so blinded by birferism that you do not even notice that that is an argument for the claim that since the elctors are free to choose according to their conscience, it is the electors who got chosen in November, and not the President or Vice-President.

    That is not new, by the way, we already know that electors cannot vote for a candidate who is dead at the time they assemble at their State House to vote. Just google Horace Greeley.

    Note that it says BECOME disqualified – and that the “not only to … phrase may also refer back to disqualified. Meaning that that passage does not really address what you are thinking about. Obama has always been black, he has not suddenly become so.

    Your name reminds me of another famous President who was born with dual citizenship. And whose career had a few similarities with that of Obama. Only, he did not have a birth certificate, and he actually raised taxes. Did he become disqualified by putting the wrong Texan village on his brand new birth certificate or by raisng marginal income tax rates to 80%? I guess not.

  61. avatar
    Thrifty December 4, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Keith: The Electors were elected. No one cast a vote for Barrack Obama for President in Florida or any other State. They voted for slates of representatives to the Electoral College.

    I hate this explanation of the Electoral College. Why is it that every four years, instead of voting for one of the presidential candidates that receive endless media coverage for approximately 6 years prior to the election, I am voting for mystical “electors” whose names I don’t even know?

  62. avatar
    Thrifty December 4, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    Wow! I had no idea I was an accessory to a crime just because I exercised my Constitutionally granted right, as a citizen, to vote. This upsets me more than that time the local district attorney prosecuted me for attempted murder. What hogwash! Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted science?

    dualer: I have no illusions, but will make them all lie in the light of history, so that history will know who sold out the Republic. Obama is a domestic enemy, and so are his abettors on this forum.

  63. avatar
    Keith December 4, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Thrifty: I hate this explanation of the Electoral College.Why is it that every four years, instead of voting for one of the presidential candidates that receive endless media coverage for approximately 6 years prior to the election, I am voting for mystical “electors” whose names I don’t even know?

    Because.

  64. avatar
    Rickey December 4, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    dualer:
    Obama is a domestic enemy, and so are his abettors on this forum.

    If you provide me with your e-mail address I’ll send you my name and address so you can arrest me after you have removed the usurper from office.

    While you’re at it, could you learn to use the QUOTE function on this forum?

  65. avatar
    JPotter December 4, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Thrifty: I hate this explanation of the Electoral College. Why is it that every four years, instead of voting for one of the presidential candidates that receive endless media coverage for approximately 6 years prior to the election, I am voting for mystical “electors” whose names I don’t even know?

    It’s formality. You’re telling your state how to vote. You could run to be an elector (maybe…process varies by state). They’re not mystical, merely human, and their names are known. Look’em up.

    all that said … I know exactly how you feel!

  66. avatar
    JPotter December 4, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    dualer …. dual-citizen? drives a ‘dualie’?

  67. avatar
    gorefan December 4, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    dualer: A judicial determination in support of the holding is not merely dicta. , Ogilvie et al v. US., 519 U.S. 79 (1996))

    They did not have to determine her citizenship as the holding in the case makes clear,

    “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”

    Justice Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.

    “But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”

    Not the O’Gilvie (please note the spelling) nonsense again. You realize that that same argument means that the dicta in the Wong Kim Ark decision becomes “judical determination in support of the holding”.

    You may want to do some research into what is dicta and what is holding.

    This might help:

    U. S. v. Crawley, 837 F.2d 291

    Then try this experiment,

    Remove the single line “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ” from the Minor decision and see if that changes the ruling it any way. The line can be “sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion” and is therefore dicta.

    The Magic M: So, did the fetishists from ORYR finally find their way here?

    This might explain people like “Dualer” (is that a reference to AC/DC and I don’t mean the band).

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

  68. avatar
    J.D. Reed December 4, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    “Eligibility for ofice is a judicial determination, upon any challenge properly made (Shevin v. Stone).Besides, a judicial determination of ineligibility will inform the electors prior to the electoral college:“The nominees of the party for president and vice-president may have become disqualified, or peculiarly offensive not only to the electors but their constituents also. They should be free to vote for another, as contemplated by the Twelfth Amendment.” 343 US 214,

    So? These electors were picked precisely because they are party loyalists, and are the least likely to abandon ship. Your hope for a “judicial determination of ineligibility” in the next 13 days has less of a chance than a single water molecule of a snowflake in Hades.

  69. avatar
    Thrifty December 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    I tried to find my electors once, but I failed. Granted I didn’t try very hard. Still, it’s a lot harder than finding out, say, who’s running for some piddly municipal office like Insurance Commissioner or Register in Chancery (though I’m not sure that’s still an elected office; I haven’t seen campaign signs for it in like a decade).

    JPotter: It’s formality. You’re telling your state how to vote. You could run to be an elector (maybe…process varies by state). They’re not mystical, merely human, and their names are known. Look’em up.

    all that said … I know exactly how you feel!

  70. avatar
    Sudoku December 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    Look at you own words. You say the FL elector votes will go to Obama. If Obama has already been elected, what votes could go to him?

    Your arguments have already failed twice in FL, not counting the still pending, doomed appeal. This has no chance either. You are wasting the court’s time and resources.

    dualer: The Elector vote represents the popular vote, and all of the Fla. Elector votes will go to Obama.

  71. avatar
    The Magic M December 5, 2012 at 6:40 am #

    JPotter: dualer …. dual-citizen? drives a ‘dualie’?

    “Dualer” is a self-proclaimed term for the notion “dual citizenship (at birth) disqualifies one from office”. It’s a subset of the Vattelists (because even two citizen parents would not be enough for them as long as at least one of the parents holds dual citizenship and confers that upon the child according to the other country’s laws).

    gorefan: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

    It’s psychology 101 that many people hate in others what they hate in themselves. Therefore it’s not a stretch to claim that people who hate homosexuals actually hate their own homosexual tendencies.

  72. avatar
    JPotter December 5, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    The Magic M: “Dualer” is a self-proclaimed term for the notion “dual citizenship (at birth) disqualifies one from office”.

    Aw, thanks. So many species to track. If only their names were in convenient Latin ;)

    I was thinking it was a reference to the old, classic, basic xenophobic fauxVattelist position, two citizen parents required to be NBC … or a citizen at all, typically adopted in over-zealous opposition to illegal immigration. Like a winger gateway drug to more extreme forms.

    My favorite is the “2 NBCs required to make an NBC”. It goes to such crazy places; the crazy connoisseur in me regrets it hasn’t become more prevalent. It’s rarely possible to underestimate the depths crazy will go … or to find limits on stupid. I thought dualer might be a reference to this position as well.

    Thanks for the explainer … seems like it should be “anti-dualer” tho!

  73. avatar
    The Magic M December 5, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    JPotter: I was thinking it was a reference to the old, classic, basic xenophobic fauxVattelist position, two citizen parents required to be NBC …

    Maybe it is and I mixed it up (since I always called your definition “Vattelists” only) – I wouldn’t bet my life on my definition, I haven’t seen the term “dualer” since the Post & Email started hiding behind a paywall.

    JPotter: My favorite is the “2 NBCs required to make an NBC”.

    I guess that one was either additional wishful thinking on the birfers’ part (as in “that would be an even better protection”, possibly fueled by the question what difference it makes w.r.t. loyalty if one’s parents naturalized one minute before or after your birth) or the result of “playing telephone”, a misunderstanding based on another misunderstanding.

    It’s also one of my favourites, mostly for the madness that would ensue if every presidential candidate actually would have to prove his NBC ancestry back until 1776 (oddly reminds me of the Nazi regime requiring people to prove their “Aryan ancestry” – and even they only cared for about 4 generations back). Just one ancestor with doubtful citizenship – you’re out!
    Combine that with the dualers (by my definition) and one dual citizen in your ancestry also taints the entire family tree down from there. Your great-great-great-great-grandfather a dual US/British citizen? Out!

    I don’t want to invoke Godwin’s law, but I know of only one country in history that ever cared so much about “purity” as some birthers do…

  74. avatar
    gorefan December 10, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Voeltz’s and Klayman’s work has gotten a litttle harder. The Florida Governor and SoS have certified the popular vote and submitted the ascertainment of vote to the National Archives.

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/ascertainment-florida.pdf

    So have Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

    More will probabably be added today.

    Here are the formal procedures:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf

  75. avatar
    The Magic M December 10, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    gorefan: The Florida Governor and SoS have certified the popular vote and submitted the ascertainment of vote to the National Archives.

    Time for Orly and other “motion for stay”. ;)

    Funny – three write-in candidate pairs received less than the two votes they have themselves. Talk about getting out the vote, they couldn’t even get their own!

    The other write-ins, except one, got only their own votes plus one – not even those they designated their electors voted for them.
    And the only only who got more than three votes got exactly his own plus those of his 29 electors.
    *lol*

  76. avatar
    gorefan December 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    The Magic M: *lol*

    Write-in David C. Byrne got 0 votes (didn’t vote or didn’t vote for himself) and his list of electors include at least 5 family members who didn’t vote for him.

    The ascertainment cites Florida statue 103.011

    103.011 Electors of President and Vice President.—Electors of President and Vice President, known as presidential electors, shall be elected on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each year the number of which is a multiple of 4. Votes cast for the actual candidates for President and Vice President shall be counted as votes cast for the presidential electors supporting such candidates. The Department of State shall certify as elected the presidential electors of the candidates for President and Vice President who receive the highest number of votes.

    I imagine this will be part of the defense’s motion to dismiss.

  77. avatar
    gorefan December 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    The Magic M: Time for Orly and other “motion for stay

    The Constitution Party of Florida’s candidate was Virgil H. Goode, Jr. – who I believe is suing the President in Alabama (case was dismissed last week). He got fewer votes than Roseanne Barr.

  78. avatar
    Thrifty December 10, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    The Magic M: Funny – three write-in candidate pairs received less than the two votes they have themselves. Talk about getting out the vote, they couldn’t even get their own!

    Maybe the candidates were like Paul Metzler in the movie Election: they thought it didn’t feel right to vote for oneself.

  79. avatar
    Thrifty December 10, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    gorefan: Voeltz’s and Klayman’s work has gotten a litttle harder. The Florida Governor and SoS have certified the popular vote and submitted the ascertainment of vote to the National Archives

    Where is the REAL Ascertainment of Vote? That one has layers. It is obviously a clumsy forgery that any 5 year old could do but I won’t bother to try and prove this by making my own forged version.

  80. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    gorefan: Write-in David C. Byrne got 0 votes (didn’t vote or didn’t vote for himself) and his list of electors include at least 5 family members who didn’t vote for him.

    According to what I found on David Byrne (the candidate, not the leader of the Talking Heads), he lives in Georgia, so he couldn’t vote for himself in Florida. I don’t know whether he was on the ballot in Georgia and whether he voted for himself there.

    David Byrne of the Talking Heads lives in NYC and is from Scotland and so may not be able to run or serve (I don’t know, I will have to ask Apuzzo whether he is a Citizen of the United States, a born citizen, a natural born citizen, an Article II whatchamacallit or just a guy). Regardless, I am a huge fan of the Talking Heads.

  81. avatar
    gorefan December 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Scientist: he couldn’t vote for himself in Florida

    Good point. I assumed he was from Florida as he had five Byrnes listed as electors and I assume state electors had to be from that state but that may not be the case.

    Scientist: I am a huge fan of the Talking Heads.

    Same as it ever was.

  82. avatar
    Keith December 10, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Scientist: According to what I found on David Byrne (the candidate, not the leader of the Talking Heads), he lives in Georgia, so he couldn’t vote for himself in Florida.I don’t know whether he was on the ballot in Georgia and whether he voted for himself there.

    Stop making sense.

  83. avatar
    Scientist December 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    gorefan: Good point. I assumed he was from Florida as he had five Byrnes listed as electors and I assume state electors had to be from that state but that may not be the case.

    I would have assumed that electors had to live in the state they represent, but that seems not to be the case http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#qualifications

    In fact, the only requirements for Electors is that they not be Senators or Representatives or hold an “Office of Trust or Profit under the United States”. In princple, they don’t have to be US citizens or even live in the US (though they have to be able to travel to the state capital on the required date to cast their votes). So, one could outsource ones electors to China if one wanted to. This seems like a real oversight on the part of the folks who wrote Article II-yes Mario, they not only used a term that would confuse you 220 years later, but they allowed a possibility for foreigners to control the election of a US President. Very sloppy work your deities did, sir.

    Keith: Stop making sense

    Apuzzo did that many years ago.

  84. avatar
    Keith December 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    Scientist: Keith: Stop making sense

    Apuzzo did that many years ago.

    Actually, every time I see the illustrative photo at the top of the post, I think of Thomas Dolby: “He blinded me with science!”

    (but yes, I realize it is Gene Wilder).