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: lml who wrote (2160)	11/24/2000 7:40:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

" I think the separation of powers argument here is weak." Well, at least we now know that the US Supreme Court does not share this view. According to the Supreme Court acceptance of the case, they're concerned about a federal law, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5, which says that in choosing electors the states may not deviate from rules set forth at least six days prior to the election. That's the federal statute that they asked for briefing on. They may consider, but did not ask for briefing and argument on, the separation of powers issue. Here's the actual text of the federal statute: CITE 3 USC Sec. 5 01/26/98 EXPCITE TITLE 3 - THE PRESIDENT CHAPTER 1 - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES TEXT Sec. 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned. SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 673.)

To: lml who wrote (2160)	11/25/2000 10:06:49 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 3887

Far be it from me to second guess the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does seem curious how the Bush people want to do everything to prevent a manual recount when at the same time they want to allow virtually all the military absentee ballots to count. This really opens Pandora's box. Every state election law I know of insists on (1) evidence the ballot was postmarked the day of the election or the day before the election (depending on the state), but NEVER after the election, and (2) that the signature on the envelope containing the absentee ballot must look the same as the voters signature on record with the local board of elections. So now we have the Bush people saying, "don't verify the military absentee ballots; count all of them." My, my, how interesting, considering that they also say, "don't count any more ballots in Dade County." Who is stealing the election? After all is resolved, what will be true is that Gore got most of the votes in Florida, even if the State and the Supreme Court said all the votes didn't have to be counted or recounted. If Bush wins, he will become known as the first president to steal the election, with help from his brother. Art