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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energy_investor who wrote (8234)	12/2/2000 4:10:01 PM
From: Roger A. Babb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Ray, the actions you spoke of in Seminole County would obviously be criminal if done by a Democrat. But the actions were by good Republicans whose only intent was to elect their man, without their efforts Gore would have won. I am sure that they will be rewarded for their heroic efforts.

To: energy_investor who wrote (8234)	12/2/2000 5:54:52 PM
From: Northern Marlin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Please share with me and the thread what your understanding is of what happened in Seminole and Martin counties. Thank you, Phil

To: energy_investor who wrote (8234)	12/2/2000 7:38:11 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 10042

<<<because we are a nation of laws and have to abide by our court decisions.>>> Not being versed in the law, this election has been very enlightening. Apparently, a law, as quoted to and considered by a common citizen, is not really a law as has been well demonstrated by David Boies. If one has enough money, or a good attorney, the law may be merely a rule or a statute or a law may not really be a law at all until it has been tested or contested. This explains some strange situations, such as a person still driving with outstanding traffic citations, or hundreds of unpaid parking tickets, or a proven criminal released on a technicality, or an innocent still in jail for many years. It is being implied that Judges, Canvassing boards, Secretary of State, Secretary of Agriculture, even the State Judiciary may be in violation of various laws. Will they end up in jail or be fined or fired? I am waiting for the US Supreme Court to say to the State of Florida, ala Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee- "Thats a law? Naaaaaaaaaaaaah,thats not a law- THIS is a LAW" Sig

To: energy_investor who wrote (8234)	12/2/2000 10:37:36 PM
From: Sr K	Respond to of 10042

My reading of the Gore team brief to the USSC is that there would be a challenge to any attempt by the FL legislature to send its own slate of electors, if Gore wins the recount. The point was made on page 24 of that brief that the origin of that right was during a late stage of Reconstruction where the states wanted some recourse if the Washington legislature usurped their voters' intent. To use it now to subvert the voters' intent is likely to ultimately get to the USSC and get nowhere. The language of 3 U.S.C. § 5 thus provides a safe harbor for the State’s “final determination” of who its electors are, protecting them from subsequent challenge before the Houses of Congress if that final determination is made “by judicial or other methods or procedures” “provided[] by laws enacted prior to” election day. 3 U.S.C. § 5. It does not require the States to follow any procedure with respect to determining who its electors are, nor does it prohibit any such procedure. But it does contemplate the exact course of events followed here – a law set before election day, and the resolution of those disputes occurring after election day through “judicial” “methods” under that law. The legislative history of 3 U.S.C. § 5 confirms this understanding. That history establishes conclusively that the statute’s only purpose and effect is to provide the States with a way to guarantee that a State’s electors will not be subject to challenge in Congress at the time the electors’ votes are tabulated pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment. Both Sections 5 and 15 of Title 3 were a direct reaction to the Hayes-Tilden debacle of 1877 in which multiple sets of presidential electors from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina claimed legitimacy and sought to have Congress count their votes. Given that the electoral college tally was exceedingly close (Samuel Tilden needed only a single electoral vote to prevail), the choice would determine the outcome of the election. But federal law at that time did not specify how such conflicting claims should be resolved, a circumstance that raised the realistic prospect of renewed civil war. The matter was referred to a commission that included five Justices of this Court and was ultimately resolved through a compromise in which Democrats acquiesced in the counting of votes in favor of Hayes in exchange for a promise that federal troops supporting Republican governments in South Carolina and Louisiana would be withdrawn, allowing Democratic governments to be seated, and effectively ending Reconstruction. Congress debated for more than a decade how to avoid a reprise of the Hayes-Tilden incident. The solution adopted, as contemporary commentators recognized, was to permit the States themselves to adopt procedures that would ensure that their electors were properly identified. Thus, under Section 5 as enacted, “Congress does not command the states to provide for a determination of the controversies or contests that may arise concerning the appointment of the electors, does not even declare it to be the duty of the states to do so, but simply holds out an inducement for them so to act.”