» Movement in lawsuit against Dick Cheney to fix Electoral College for 2008 OntheWilderSide

Movement in lawsuit against Dick Cheney to fix Electoral College for 2008

Posted on November 2, 2008 by iwilder

Our Green Party colleague Asa Gordon, from the DC Statehood Green Party, is brilliant. In 2000, he filed a lawsuit as a non-attorney, pro se citizen, to try to intervene in the Florida recount. He was actually able to argue before a federal judge on the matter. And, for the 2008 election, Asa Gordon has the lawsuit in the hopper that can insure that the people’s choice for President wins.

For the 2008 election, Asa has studied the situation with the Electoral College and realized a huge loophole which could make the Electoral College instantly more fair. While other people are working on other angles for reforming the electoral college, such as the National Popular Vote, Asa believes that it is already our constitutional right to have a more fair process. And, he has the research, quotes from the Constitution, and a lawsuit to prove it now.

Asa Gordon notes that a large number of states, who at this time automatically give all their Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all-basis, have no reason or law to do it that way. If Asa’s lawsuit prevails, many states will have to allocate their electors based on a more fair, proportional representation system.
Asa Gordon’s pro se lawsuit is in the courts now. And, he just heard of some movement from the other side…Dick Cheney. Below is an explanation of the recent happenings, video of Asa explaining his idea, and a timeline of his proceedings through the courts. Please note that Asa’s web-site www.electors.us is down due to technical difficulties. There is a lot of information about Asa and his lawsuit on google, youtube and at www.gp.org.

11/1/2008 Status Report, from Asa Gordon:GORDON vs. CHENEY
CASE NUMBER_1:08-cv-01294
JUDGE: Henry H. Kennedy
DATE STAMP: 07/28/2008

This Friday I received notice of a serious but flattering development_its getting heavy folks.

RICHARD B. CHENEY, Vice President of the United States has dismissed the US attorney assigned to him by the Department of Justice(DOJ) and personally filed with the United States District Court a “Notice of Substitution of Counsel” to detail a current Legislative Attorney (Yule Kim) at the Congressional Research Service(CRS) United States Constitution Division to the DOJ as a “Special Assistant United States Attorney” to the DOJ to represent him in GORDON vs CHENEY.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBp5NrmdKOs]

A TIMELINE of Pleadings before the Court:

July 28th, 2008
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

July 29th, 2008
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

August 18th, 2008
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION TO DISMISS

August 21, 2008
[COURT] ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Sept. 18th, 2008
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Sept. 19th, 2008
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Sept. 29th, 2008
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Oct. 6th, 2008
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Oct. 16th, 2008
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF IT’S MOTION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS.

Oct. 28th, 2008
RICHARD B. CHENEY FILES WITH THE COURT A NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL.PENDING ORDERS BEFORE THE COURT:
The court can sign off at anytime now granting the Defendant’s Court Order for Dismissal, or grant the Plaintiff’s Court Order for Oral Argument For Summary Judgment.

——————————————————————————————–

Reference the GPUS Press Release :

Greens launch effort against Electoral College manipulation of presidential elections

A civil action to protect the voting rights of presidential electors and the voters they represent was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on July 28, 2008, by Asa Gordon, chair of the DC Statehood Green Party’s Electoral College Task Force and executive director of the Douglass Institute of Government . The Civil Action was filed on July 28th, 2008, to commemorate the Century and Two Score years anniversary of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The civil action seeks relief against the defendant, Vice President Cheney, who will preside over the tabulation of “unbound Southen electoral states” who by practice, unsupported by state or federal statute, traditionally award Presidential Electors on a “winner-take-all basis”.

The civil action seeks the issuance of a court declaratory order providing proportional apportionment of “unbound Southern states” presidential electors pursuant to 2U.S.C.§6 to enforce the mal-apportionment penalty (MAP) provision of the Second Section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

“Defendant’s [Cheney] certain bias presentation for tabulation in the Hall of the House of Representatives, January 6, 2009, of majority polled presidential electors from unbounded southern states ungrounded in either state or federal law , constitutes a discriminatory abridgment of the voting rights of minority polled presidential electors based on race and/or party affiliation in violation of the mal-apportionment penalty clause pursuant to the United States Constitution (Amend. XIV§2) and statutory Code (2USC§6).”

– Gordon vs Gore.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

NOTE: IF McCAIN’S LEAD IN THE ELECTORAL COUNT IS NOT OVER 18 HE HAS LOST THE ELECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION’S MAL-APPORTIONMENT PENALTY.

This GPUS/DIG Civil Action can gain 10 presidential electors for Obama “under the rule of law” in the “unbounded Southern states” of Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, & Tennessee based on the black vote alone and 18 presidential electors based on the Democratic party vote. If Obama wins the popular vote, but loses in the “winner take all” total tabulation of presidential electors by less then 18, then Obama can only lose in the electoral college by a deliberate acquiescence by the Democratic party leadership in a discrimatory racial result ungrounded in either state or federal statute and in violation of the clear text of the Second Section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Excerpt:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant’s cavalier pleadings are contemptuous of the gravity of this action. The continuous denial of the Mal-apportion Penalty of 2U.S.C.§6 for the mal-apportionment of presidential electors will present a real possibility for public disorder and justifiable loss of confidence in the Untied States purported democracy in the aftermath of the 2008 Presidential election. The “winner-take-all” award of presidential electors that represent the majority choice of the white population in “unbounded Southern states” (with its historic legacy of de jure black disfranchisement) with the de facto disfranchisement of any apportionment of presidential electors based on the majority choice of its black population not grounded in any federal or state stature present the distinct possibility that Mr. Obama, the nations first viable black candidate for president of the United States, could win the popular vote in 2008 by a larger margin than did Gore in 2000, but will repeat the Democratic loss in the Electoral College. This turn in events will have national and international consequences for the determination that American Democracy is hopelessly grounded in the racial bias of its constitutional origins.

A brief reflection on our past, in order to illuminate our present, so as to gain informed insight into our future.

The specter of the original Constitution’s compromise over the issue of slavery established an institutionalized Constitutional franchise by racial quotas that haunts every modern day presidential election. The compromises established an anti-majoritarian Constitutional representational and electoral math that disproportionately favored the minority white population of the South by counting a disfranchised black population.

The compromises put into place institutional safeguards to preserve racial privilege predicated upon Southern white minority privilege quotas for congressional representation and electoral politics. How did our nation evolve in just over the decade mark from the divine universal addition in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 – the self evident truth- “That all men are created equal” – to the fractional division of – “3/5ths of all other persons” – in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It required a cognitive dissonance that could compartmentalize democracy with racial exclusion. This was the Faustian bargain denounced by contemporary abolitionists as the Constitution’s “covenant with death.”

Historically, the “Southern white minority privilege quotas” has worked well.

The “Southern white minority privilege quotas” favored the slave state of Virginia with over a quarter of the electors required to elect a President, resulting in the election of a white slaveholding Virginian to the presidency for 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years. A slaveholder served as president for 50 of the nations first 60 years. From the constitutional convention of 1787 to the election of 1860 at the dawn of the Civil War only two Presidents were elected, who were not favorable to slavery.

How did America redeem itself from our nation’s original sin in the garden of democracy. By a cataclysmic fratricidal baptism in blood unparalleled in the history of Civil War.

Immediately after the Union victory in America’s Civil War, that ended slavery, the United States of America began the arduous process of granting and guaranteeing full civil rights for the freed slaves and African Americans generally. That remarkably progressive period was called Reconstruction. We should honor the abolitionist and democratic spirit embodied in the Reconstruction amendments. We should honor those amendments to the Constitution that represent the crowning achievement of the ultimate sacrifice made in the Civil War by that “band of brothers” of Americans of European and African descent to effect “a new birth of freedom” and forge “a more perfect union“.

The Reconstruction amendments restored our most enduring founding principle, the forgotten and maligned “self evident truth”, the divine universal addition in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 – – “That all men are created equal” was redeemed in the second section of the fourteen amendment to the Constitution.

“Winner take all” , ungrounded in either federal or state statute, which preserves and perpetuates the disproportionate racial electoral bias created in the nation’s constitutional origin for the former slave states is anathema to the core of that founding principle.

II. ARGUMENT …

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Please Note: AOL is no-longer supporting WEB hosting as of Oct. 31 so all my web sites have vanished until I obtain a new host for my web presence.

Google: – Asa Gordon Electoral College – for more info and Video’s

Asa Gordon,
Exe. Dir. DIG
Chair, DCSGP_ECTF
(202) 635-7926

–

OntheWilderSide

Contact Us

Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire: Ultimate Fan Guide

Green Party Peace Sign Bumper Sticker

Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened?

Calendar

Blogroll

Favorite Muses

Green Party Websites

Kind Shopping

More Events Calendars

Our Favorite Radio Stations

Political Websites

Recommended Music

Recommended Poetry

OntheWilderSide

Contact Us

Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire: Ultimate Fan Guide

Green Party Peace Sign Bumper Sticker

Occupy Wall Street: What Just Happened?