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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (86553)	12/10/2000 4:28:43 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Ben, >>Ironically, Gore would probably win Florida if the US Supreme Court decided it could not meddle in the way a state is handling it's own election results.<< I haven't resolved this one in my own head yet. I generally believe the Supreme Court shouldn't meddle in state affairs unless the state is violating Federal Law. Then again, as a states rights person I would prefer there not be too many Federal laws to begin.

To: benwood who wrote (86553)	12/10/2000 4:36:10 PM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 132070

The state's rights issue concerning the election of the chief executive of the Federal gov't is a canard. The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is the amendment that vests the States with State's rights. But the fact is that the power of electing the President is plainly enumerated in Article II. It's amusing that the people squawking 'state's rights, state's rights' are the very people who would prefer that the Federal gov't micromanage every aspect of human life in the US. How conveeeeeenient. Regards, Barb