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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (308)	12/9/2000 8:04:27 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Bosco, actually my language was meant to be interpreted literally, but it is also a dark view of the future which I hope never comes to pass. Nevertheless as we move forwards it seems that so far all of my worst fears have come to pass. Yes, there is inflammatory language being used, but I fear it will get worse from here. Will Texas secede? I would hope not, but the day may eventually come when it happens. A historical footnote is that Texas used to be a separate country and had several different Presidents, including Sam Houston and Mirabeau LaMar (a very distant relative of mine, FWIW). When the Republic of Texas elected to give up its independence and join the US, they received a concession that no other state has, and that is the right to secede if they choose to do so. You are correct that many people have learned a great deal about the legal system and our system for election. However have they learned respect for it? I fear not.... I certainly didn't mean to blame the FSC for causing the split in the country; obviously they didn't do that. Rather I blame them for making it a bit worse. They created a false hope that some sort of "equitable solution" was about to happen, and offered a tempting though legally unlikely solution. They ignored legal principles in an attempt to "do what is right", at least in their mind, and they created a decision which they attempted to credit to the Florida Election Laws, but which actually was created in their heads. There are two important legal principles that are at stake here. One is that the rules in place prior to the election should govern, not some new system created after the election. The other is that the legislature is to determine how elections are to be conducted, and the courts should rarely be involved except in cases of fraud. These principles aren't receiving much play in the press, especially by comparison with the Gore dogma that "every vote must be counted." Thus while people are learning a bit about the election process, I suspect that they will come away with some very negative reactions because people from both sides will believe that the system is partisan and corrupt. Carl