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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: G_Barr who wrote (274)	11/13/2000 5:20:07 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

If the margin of error determined by hand recount was large in some Fl counties, does it not suggest some states may have margins of error that could change the outcome of their elections too? Does this not open the door for a constitutional argument that other states should be subject to recount based upon some systematic errors, whether they be in punch cards, optical scanners etc? I think this is a can of worms and can be pursued as long and as far as one wishes. V

To: G_Barr who wrote (274)	11/13/2000 5:39:57 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

See here's my one data point: msnbc.com V

To: G_Barr who wrote (274)	11/13/2000 7:39:28 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

However, the thought that this will be decided as a matter of constitutional law is folly. Lemme say this Barr, you have little clue as the law that is at play here. If constitutional law is not a play here, what is or great one? Is it contract law? Tort law? Property interests? Please tell me. You prefer to twist my initial comments to scum by framing the definition of constitutional law very narrowly. You state that "This is a matter of Florida state law." Correct. What state law may I ask? Do you refer to the Florida Elections Code? And where does the legislature receive its authority to enact such statutes? Please, if you wish to debate the issues here on the merits, then at least respect the legal principles upon which all these arguments rest, and that is constitutional law, both state and Federal. It amazes me how you not only dispute this critical underpinning, but have the audacity to dismiss it as a "joke" or "folly." Doesn't change the fact that I have still not heard anyone put forth a colorable constitutional claim and it appears that one federal judge agrees with me. Don't flatter yourself. The judge agrees with you, huh? I guess he sought your counsel before he rendered his decision. Your arrogance on these matters is the folly here.