JRA,
I must, respectfully, dissent as to your reading of the law on a number of issues.
1. Previously agreed with you about this. I would add that what Bush thinks is probably often irrelevant. <g>
2. A campaign for federal office cannot simply create a federal question. Neither your arguments, or the basis for the SCT decision, are valid or consistent with precedent. Have you read Art. 2 of the Constitution recently? The Constitution vests the "manner" in which electors are to be determined with the States. If I recall, the federal statute provided little in the way of justiciable controversy for the SCT. Instead, it allowed them to reach the result they wanted - another Bush in the WH. I can see we will not agree about this. Although I believe the law is on my side, I also concede that a majority of the highest court in the land disagrees. Yet another problem with the politicization of the judiciary.
(3) Nonvotes under the punch card were about 3x that of other systems. More mental defectives in that county or a bad ballot? Your guess carries as much weight as mine (although I'm sure you would disagree, as your guesses are "factual" and thus indisputable). A couple of newspapers looked at the overvotes and found that Gore would have won, although there were quite a few of "double" votes for Bush and another candidate.
4. Nope. I had just addressed it elsewhere.
As far as the charges being "proved beyond doubt" in the impeachment, the final arbiter of "proof" in such a situation is the Senate. The Constitution vests that power with the Senate. The Senate found the burden of proof NOT MET. Art. 2, sec. 4 requires "conviction" of high crime or misdemeanor prior to removal from office. Because the burden was not met Clinton was not removed. As a result, the law actually supports my position.
your bastion of objectivity,
ham |
