It's ok, let the anger/disappointment build up, but

[rumpel]

fact is: we WON! Dismissal at this level and certainly for "jurisdictional" issues is not a loss.

We now know, well, I for one, did not know until this case proceeded to this stage,

Your State
Your Court

they say : have no powers over federal elections

and yet the constitution clearly says otherwise. The "People" elect their Representatives -

An "uncertified election result" is still an "uncertified election result" - they were still counting votes, dear Universe! "The Peoples' say was not completely tallied. There is a logical vacuum here.
Do you think founders of this country "meant" the legislative branch has absolute power to decide "who is allowed" to serve with that body?
Just by declaration or announcement or swearing in? Did our founders drop this one ball?

I for one, do not think so- it is a misinterpretation/misapplication of the Constitution which was applied in the very few cases that existed until today and it has to be revisited. And as a reminder, it is not a partisan issue. I hope Land Shark is ready to take it wherever it may lead, it means it is ready to be readdressed.
This needs to be heard!

And judge Hofmann, what is wrong with "academic" debate - it goes straight to the core of the principles of this case and subsequently to the Constitution of this country and it's laws, which the defendants abused to throw into question: "the powers endowed to the will of the people"- the laws you are supposedly protecting. To a lay person you are the guardian of the law and Constitution. "Why are you afraid to consider such debate?" And how is it that the fact of a vote count of more votes than existing registered voters is not "sufficient evidence" to at least - the very least, to find out what happened? You have shied away from which you were to uphold and defend.

But it is all right, you have now underlined a few items previously missed by all of us in the debate of the integrity of our voting system:
How important it is to investigate the myriad of elections of judges, which I used to skip to vote on - because I had no idea who these people are.
But more importantly, that people have to wake up if they want their voices heard and represented - the great ideas of our founders are slipping away right from under us - while we are being bombarded with hours of why the Colorado DA did or did not extradite a false murder confessor.

Certainly, case law dates back - but Land Shark did willing or unwillingly bring this misinterpretation back to the forefront of the debate of core principles.

If any of you believe, you have just witnessed an abuse of power - it is now also your and my collective responsibility to prevent it from happening in the first place.
More than penning a signature on an important document, you are endowing your own future - you are in effect giving power of attorney, to someone you do not know to speak for you when you vote.

But did anyone know until today - that courts do not have jurisdiction, that states are not allowed to have a recount when congress unilaterally decides to accept someone? And how many of these matters in congress proceed with a handful of Representatives on the floor - in the middle of the night, stated as "unanimous consent". We are no fools. I would like to know how many did in fact "consent" to the "unofficial results" of an election.

There is something inherently wrong here and it needs to be, at the very least, "academically" discussed. To me, this mis-application of the Constitution clause is a constitutional crisis - please prove me otherwise.
And spread this debate wide and far - letters to editors - questions to editors - and we'll see what happens.

Thank you Land Shark for bringing this grave issue to light - God speed towards phase 2, should your clients decide and have the means to continue.

and with that signing off for the night...

[JimDandy]

1. Perhaps documents still exist in which the founders

discussed Article I Section 5. Sometimes, in the face of ambiguity and lack of precedent, courts look at these types of documents to determine what the original intent of the drafters was. Anyone know a good constitutional scholar who could tell us whether or not documents discussing this Article are still extant?

Rumpel, I bet that if Zogby polled U.S. citizens on whether they knew their state and courts had no power over federal elections, the percent saying "no" would even beat the 92% who wanted transparency in the election process. Knowledge is power and anger can be motivational.

[rumpel]

8. time for another poll

:)

we can help by finding that document of the founders -

[BeFree]

2. It is a big move

Almost an earthquake type of movement which is sure to effect the foundation of the current interpretation of the constitution.

It is a revolution in it's infancy.

This revolution may not televised, but it has begun to be webalized and therefore realized.

NGU.

[Kurovski]

3. Has the spirit of Johnnie Cochran descended upon you?

:-)You're climbin'on the rhymin'!

I see the case as a good thing as well, rumpel. It's an ongoing process. The powers that be aren't going to give up just like that.

It will be a battle royale.

[BeFree]

4. In Spirit?

I could be in worse company.

I like your SCOTUS pleadings you have been peppering us with, Kurovski. 'Tis a worthy banner for our cause.

Now, about this revolution......

[Kurovski]

6. "...It will be a battle royale."

RE, Cochran: or am I thinking maybe Jesse Jackson?

[BeFree]

7. Better company, yet....JJ

I was told last night, by a well established Dem, that it was good people like me are speaking out against the machines.

All I could say was that I alone would not be able to win, it was going to take Dems like her to join the battle. Then it shall become the "Battle Royale."

[rumpel]

9. lol, where are our gloves..

so we can slam them in their face...

[kpete]

5. Great Post rumpel

And let me add my thanks and respect to Land Shark who I know put his heart, soul and spirit into this effort.

"Our declaration of a (sad) victory by our side to the media today is because we've proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants INTENDED to terminate the elections process and knew full well that this would be the effect of their unilateral and premature swearing in of Bilbray only 7 days after the election. "

wise words from Land Shark

[Gregorian]

10. Well, then there was no need for Bush v. Gore.

Why could Congress have not just sworn in Bush?

And thank you for your post. You spoke of the thoughts that have been roaming around in my cranial cavern since this happened.

[midnight]

11. Landsharks brought to light the misinterpretation of how

the constitution was used in this case in Cal. That the courts do not have jurisdiction? I hope I have a correct understanding of your response. Also I hope there is a phase two.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FogerRox]

13. We should contest them at every step

Thats what Paul did, god bless you Paul.