Reply #133: Gore's duty? Tell the truth. That judging the legitimacy of electors is for Congress, not SCOTUS.

[pat_k]

That elections are intended to measure the will of the people, not the will of the candidates; therefore, the election is not his to concede.

That the Bush v. Gore edict does nothing but render Florida's election incomplete, and therefore invalid.⁽¹⁾

That no unlawful election process can lawfully certify electors.

That We the People charged Congress with the duty to judge the legitimacy of electors on January 6th.

That on January 6th, each Senator/Rep is constitutionally charged with the burden of being the backstop or safety valve for an election procedure that has rendered an invalid result.⁽²⁾

_______________________________________________________________

(1) The electors were not "regularly" appointed because the election laws of Florida include a "contest" provision. That election contest was underway when the Bush v. Gore edict put a stop to vote counting. It was the duty of the Congress to recognize that the Florida election had been truncated and was therefore invalid.

Title 3 Section 6 (emphasis added):

"...as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed,..."

"...and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination...."

Clarification of "under and in pursuance of the laws of such State" in Title 3 Section 5::
"...by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures..."

The laws enacted prior to the election make it clear that the appointment of the electors must be pursuant to an election (not by direct appointment of the FL legislature). And, the role of the Florida judicial system (by "judicial or other methods or procedure") is clearly spelled out in Florida law, which gives broad powers to State judicial authority in determining remedy in a contest situation.

(2) Justice Breyer provided instruction on the matter in his dissent to Bush v. Gore.

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

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.