SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Market Gems:Stocks w/Strong Earnings and High Tech. Rank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeff Jordan who wrote (118058)12/4/2000 1:04:44 PM
From: Lane Hall-Witt  Read Replies (2) of 120523
 
JJ: I don't think the US Supreme Court punted; they read the Fla S.C. decision as being rooted both in Fla election law and, separately, in the Florida Constitution. The US S.C. needed to be sure that the Fla S.C. decision could rest solely in Fla election law -- in which case the Fla S.C. would be interpreting or clarifying existing law and thus within its purview. If the Fla S.C. was appealing directly to the Fla Constitution and, in doing so, going beyond the bounds of Fla election law, then it would be "making legislation" -- in violation of the U.S. Constitution's dictates that the state legislature is to craft the laws that governs the selection of electors.

In short, if the Fla S.C. was interpreting or clarifying election law, then it was probably within its constitutional bounds (a win for Gore). If it was making legislation, then it was probably overstepping its constitutional limits (a win for Bush).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News