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: TraderGreg who wrote (3892)	11/29/2000 12:09:51 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

The US SC will probably get another entree on its plate before this is all over. I think you are right. I have resisted the "this is bad for the country" argument but now I have to admit that I believe it. I think the final decision on who is president will be decided by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision. There are those who say that this will show the "rule of law" is alive and well in the country. I believe it will do the opposite and reinforce the large and growing belief that the law is just a tool to be subverted by powerful groups to achieve an agenda. Most people fear legal action because there is no predictable outcome. How ironic. I can honestly say that I would rather have Gore as president than go through the process that I believe lies ahead in the next few weeks and possibly months.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3892)	11/29/2000 12:47:51 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 6710

<<Lastly, stop with the 'Nam war references...that is old, old, old news and is totally irrelevant to this situation.>> You will find, if you happen to number among them, that it takes you "all the way"...

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3892)	11/29/2000 1:17:56 PM
From: moosebeary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<<second of all, learned scholars on both sides of the aisle are trying to figure out what exactly "majority of appointed electors means">> You see now, this is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. You take something simple, claim it is complicated or ambiguous, and then start your process of "interpreting". And by doing so, switch the power from the Founders to yourself. Usurping what is not yours. Disgraceful. If there is anyone out there too ignorant of the language to understand what "majority of appointed electors" means, they are neither learned nor scholars. By the way, you quoted the Constitution wrong. What it says is, "The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..." "And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of Statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government".