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: Raymond Duray who wrote (3190)	11/22/2000 11:53:21 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Ok. <g>

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3190)	11/23/2000 6:33:42 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

Still ticked off because Bush's lawyer said he was unfamiliar with the law of Texas? Allow me to put it in context - by discussing context. It's likely that he read the statute you are thinking about. But reading one statute out of context doesn't tell you the law. You have to read all of the code about a certain issue before you know what the law is. And Texas has been a code state from the beginning, due to the Spanish influence, same as California. While Louisiana, where I am from, has also been a code state from the beginning, due to both French and Spanish influence. I went to law school in Louisiana, and was a member of the Louisiana bar for a while. So I do know how to read code, at least the basic technique. But there are so many codes these days - the Internal Revenue Code, for example. You probably don't know it all, but you certainly know that on your 1040 you've got a Schedule A, a Schedule B, and a Schedule D, and if you are self employed, as I am, you have a Schedule C. So when I tally up what's on my Schedule C, I still don't know what I owe, if anything, because there is still the Schedule A, the Schedule B, and the Schedule D. Just knowing one statute doesn't tell you the law. Same as with the Florida Election Code. There's a statute which says that the Secretary of State MUST certify the votes one week after the election, and there's a statute which says that the Secretary of State MAY certify the votes one week after the election, and which is the law? Why, neither, said the Florida Supreme Court, because the statutes allowing for a manual recount take precedence. So unless you look at ALL the code on that issue, you can't say you know what the law is. No sane lawyer would say he knows the law of ANY state. We all pick our little niches that we know a lot about, but outside those little niches we have to read the books just like anyone else, and ethically, usually, consult with lawyers who specialize in that area. You might as well assume that a psychiatrist can treat brain cancer.