Al Franken should be issued an interim election certificate

Thank you, Abard124, for your complements. The first paragraph of my first round argument, which I believe you refer to as my first argument('to close to call"), was not an argument at all. I just gave a few facts surrounding the issue we are discussing. I have not made the argument that it's to close to call. I only pointed out the fact that Coleman won the election by a very small margin which triggered the recount under Minnesota state law. I gave three reasons why I believe Norm Coleman should be seated until the election is certified. 1. Norm Coleman held the seat and was elected without contention in the previous term. 2. Al Franken has not won any election. 3. Norm Coleman won this election. Although it has triggered a recount, that process is not complete. Al Franken has won nothing. I will take my opponents rebuttals one by one. >1.Norm Coleman's previous term has expired, putting them at the exact same level. His previous term means nothing.< Al Franken has never been elected. Franken was challenging Coleman for the seat. Yes, technically the term is over, however, it does not make sense to allow the challenger to hold the seat when he has won nothing. Franken lost the election count and the recount is not over. Coleman was the Senator and he won the election. If one of these two men needed to be seated until the recount is completed, it would only make sense to seat Coleman. >2. We're not arguing whether he won. He does, however, have a lead of 225 votes. If he loses that lead, the election certificate can be rescinded, (unlike the presidential election of 2000[1]).< As Pro suggested earlier in his second argument, "even if it changes every day", whoever gains the lead in the recount, goes to the senate. This obviously is counterproductive and would cause more problems than if the seat just stayed empty. >3. Norm Coleman has won nothing. Al Franken won nothing either. Franken just happens to have the lead.< Coleman won the election. Franken is in the lead in the recount but the recount is not complete. Franken has won nothing. I agree with you that the state state legislature must give the governor authority to seat an interim senator and that would be unlikely for the reasons you have stated. However, that puts this argument into scope, does it not? Your contention is that the first article of the US Constitution requires the state of Minnesota to seat two senators. So, by that interpretation, the Minnesota legislature is require to give the governor authority to choose an interim senator. Yet, that is not what the XVII Article of Amendment says. > "that the legislature of any state may empower the executive "< "May" empower. You have dismantled your own legal argument. This section of Amdt. XVII concerns "vacancies". I see no other pre qualifications in the section. Your assertion that "that part was mostly meant for other things", is not backed by the text of the amendment. This case, and this debate, is about a vacancy created by an election process that has yet to reach a conclusion. Nowhere in the Constitution, does it require state to fill a vacancy with the candidate who holds the lead in a recount process. States are not even required to have recount processes. If the state legislature gave the authority to choose an interim senator to the governor, the governor would not be obligated to choose either of the two candidates, never mind the challenger who lost the election. The legislature also "may" not give the governor the authority to choose an interim. This would mean the seat would stay vacant until an election was completed. Therefore it could not possibly be unconstitutional to leave the seat empty. notes: [1] Whoever bet 1/2 way through second round, won the pool.