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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TheLineMan who wrote (83090)	11/21/2000 12:34:14 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I presume you mean to say that I don't know anything about constitutional law, as opposed to case law. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here. I still don't see any constitutional issues with regard to this case. Constitutional issues don't just pop into being, they need to be raised by someone with standing to raise them. As for voters complaining, once again, there is no constitutional right to a recount, only such rights as are granted by statute. Furthermore these rights are granted to the candidates, not to the voters. Thus Republican voters can not complain that their votes haven't been manually counted. Even if they had such a right, they have no standing to raise the issue, and no such case exists. The fact is that Bush hasn't requested a manual recount of Republican counties, so he can't complain that one wasn't done. Furthermore, Gore has no right to voluntarily agree to one even if he wanted to because it isn't his to grant; the legislature made provision for what can and can't be done, and it controls, and the time limit has expired. As for the Democrat voters, once again, they have no standing, nor any constitutional right to a manual recount to protect. They have a right to vote, and a right to have that vote counted, but not a right to have their votes re-counted, nor control over what methods are used to count it. Thus, if the Democrat counties get included in the manual recount, but not the Republican counties, so be it. Bush didn't request a manual count, and that is his problem, not the voter's problem. Similarly if the only manual recounts that get included are the ones that were done within the required time, that doesn't trigger any special rights in the voters. As for the Palm Beach Lawsuit requesting a new election, I think it will be tossed out of court soon enough since there just aren't any grounds. Even the head of the Democratic National Committee agreed with that on the radio last week. The Seminole county lawsuit will probably end up going nowhere as well. Certainly the county election officials should be sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop, and probably the activists should be punished as well. On the other hand, should the people who were assisted lose their right to vote? I don't think so. Compare this to the case where a Palm Beach county election official said on TV that she told everyone to be sure and punch number 5 (gore). That could be construed as illegal electioneering, and she should be sanctioned, but people who received her assistance shouldn't have their votes cancelled. I don't claim to be a constitutional lawyer, but I do have some exposure to the area. Nevertheless my interpretations are just that, my interpretations. I tend to be pretty strict in interpreting it, and tend to look for a limited and non-activist judiciary. Thus I would hold both sides to the letter of the law, which in my opinion is far better than making it up as you go along. Carl