Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (1636)	11/10/2000 9:25:34 PM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6710

Which one of my numerous posts are you not agreeing with? The one about the Electoral College pros and cons is made up of people from both sides of the aisle? or another one? Edit: I basically agree with Ron's post about what could happen if the EC is abolished. I was just saying that it was an issue that has geographic alignment more than political alignments. The small states want to keep it and the big states want to abolish it. TG

To: KLP who wrote (1636)	11/10/2000 9:27:06 PM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 6710

How can they teach it K, when the teachers don't know it? I'll lay you ten to one most of the teachers today don't know the difference between the Preamble and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution of the United States of America The Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Bill of Rights During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered. On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. You can read a transcription of the preamble, amendments 1-10 , and amendments 11-27 of the Constitution. Note: The above image is the joint resolution of Congress proposing 12 articles as amendments to the Constitution and was enrolled on parchment by William Lambert, a Clerk of the House. It was signed by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House, on September 28, 1789, and by John Adams, President of the Senate, shortly thereafter. The Bill of Rights, as this parchment copy is now known, is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives. You can display a high-resolution image of the Bill of Rights (339K JPEG). nara.gov

To: KLP who wrote (1636)	11/10/2000 9:30:03 PM
From: Vendit™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Newspaper Editorials Chastise Gore Campaign Comments November 10, 2000 (CNSNews.com) - The Washington Post, a newspaper that endorsed Al Gore, Friday chastised the Gore campaign for recklessly suggesting that the election will be illegitimate if George W. Bush is declared the winner. Likewise, an editorial in Friday's New York Times says, "Vice President Al Gore has escalated the atmosphere of combat surrounding the presidential election results with his decision to go to court in Florida." The Washington Post quoted Gore campaign manager William Daley as saying, "If the will of the people is to prevail, Al Gore should be awarded a victory in Florida and be our next president." That's a "poisonous" thing to say, said the newspaper's lead editorial. "Mr. Gore makes a huge mistake if he fails promptly to disown" Daley's comment. The Post says both candidates should work to "minimize [a] likely sour outcome." The Post editorial also criticizes some in the Gore campaign - and Gore himself "by proxy" - for suggesting that Gore's small lead in the popular vote gives him "superior status" - "a greater right" to contest the electoral outcome in Florida. "The electoral vote is what matters," the editorial says. It concludes, "One of these candidates - the one behind in the final Florida count - is going to have to make a political determination. You have to hope that whoever that turns out to be has in mind the country's interests ahead of his own." The lead editorial in the New York Times says it is "worrying" that the Gore team - led by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher - "would announce their support for a lawsuit while the mandatory recount is still going on and while seven days remain for the arrival of overseas absentee ballots." The New York Times says a new election in Palm Beach County "seems politically unsound and legally questionable." The editorial notes that imperfections are part of every election. Like the Washington Post, the New York Times says both candidates need to examine whether a "scorched earth" legal strategy serves the national interest. "One way or another, Republicans and Democrats alike should look toward the earliest possible date for recognizing the legitimacy of one winner in this election. They should not be laying plans that undermine an orderly and honest transition to a new presidency or set damaging precedents for future elections."