Reply #13: Here's the bottom line, as quoted by kpete

[Land Shark]

Thanks to kpete for getting me to focus on my own focus (this is quoting me/my own thread)

It thus appears now based on the signed pleadings of the defendants that the US media overlooked one of the great political stories of the year: A power grab by the Speaker of the House to terminate any action in San Diego County except those actions that they choose not to attack the jurisdiction of.

It takes two steps to get there:

STEP ONE: REP. REPRESENTATIVE BILBRAY sworn in only 7 days after June 6 election, and 16-17 days prior to election certification.

STEP TWO: DEFENDANT BILBRAY AND REGISTRAR OF VOTERS MIKEL HAAS ARGUE that under Art. I, sec. 5 of the US Constitution the House is the sole judge of the qualification of its members, and has exclusive jurisdiction over any and all questions concerning the same.

Step Two happened only three days ago, and was responded to via briefing Thursday August 24. Step Two makes clear that according to the defendants, anything that happened after they chose to swear in Bilbray 7 days after the election was void and without force or effect, but THAT NECESSARILY INCLUDES CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION RESULT, TOO.

Therefore the election never became final. The Speaker of the House apparently decided he had seen enough of this election counting business (they were still counting provisionals and so forth) and terminated the jurisdiction of san Diego county to have and hold elections by prematurely swearing in Bilbray. Or, so they claim.

The Question is: Are there any limits to this congressional power to terminate elections? Are courts powerless to protect us from the lords of the House of Representatives who know better than our election processes?