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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ecommerceman who wrote (108984)	12/10/2000 2:09:53 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"Derek--Excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. What SHOULD have happened (what would have happened had Bush accepted Gore's offer), would have been to have BOTH Bush and Gore go to the FL Legislature and ask them to write legislation enabling the manual recount to proceed in ALL of the counties, and let the chips fall where they may! How is "fair play," as you put it, violated by that?" Because if we wish to have a government of law, you do not change the rules in the middle of the game. That violates every principle of impartial, objective, rational governance. Any government depends upon the faith of the citizenry that the institutions are not arbitrary. That means the consistent, objective, and rational application of law which itself has been made according to the consistent, objective, and rational application of law which defines and governs the legitimate legislative authority. When we start monkeying about with retroactively changing law in manners both contrary and inconsistent with existing law, and especially Constitutional law!, you seriously damage the credibility and good faith in the existence of impartial law. Once again, neither Bush nor Gore, either alone or together, have the authority to even SUGGEST changes in law in the middle of the game. That would be a very, very dangerous precedent for our country, on the part of the contestants or the legislature. In this matter, I would condemn any and all politicians who would suggest so much. Derek

To: ecommerceman who wrote (108984)	12/10/2000 8:26:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Interesting argument you are making, what's wrong with changing the rules in the middle of the game? I heard it advanced last night by a Georgetown Law Professor. She said that 3 USC 5 is only a "safe harbor," so if the states want to change the laws after the election to affect the outcome, and Congress goes along with it, why not? Incredible! I am actually unable to formulate a response because the audacity is breath-taking. So much for the United States as we know it and love it. Hello, Imperial Rome. Hail, Caesar.