SI
SI
discoversearch

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: RON BL who wrote (87277)11/25/2000 12:59:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Article II

Section 1.
...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or
Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.



To: RON BL who wrote (87277)11/25/2000 1:27:56 PM
From: Dan B.  Respond to of 769670
 
Well, I saw O'Reilly intervue one Johnathon Lash, a black constitutional scholar, who predicted the court would take the case and why. A highly significant reason, IMO, is that the counting of ballots must be fair and not skewed in favor of one candidate or another.

Common Democrats I talk to confirm, it wouldn't be fair if Gore gets his counties hand-counted without the same treatment in Bush territory. All want a state-wide hand-count. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold any interpretation or set of laws that would appear to allow a partisan advantage in counting results. A system that supposedly allows one candidate to garner extra advantage after canvassing boards rule as they might, will be struck down as per long-standing principles of fairness.

Dan B



To: RON BL who wrote (87277)11/25/2000 1:35:11 PM
From: JLIHAI  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Interesting U.S. Supreme Court questions...

Will they interpret "before election day" as meaning before the electors are designated?

Will they interpret "election laws enacted by the legislature" to mean election laws enacted by the legislature subject to judicial override after the fact?