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 (5837)	12/12/2000 1:39:20 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 6710

Out of embarrassment, or fear?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (5837)	12/12/2000 3:37:35 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 6710

>>The FL SC responded to the US SC early this evening.<< Right. I didn't read the opinion, just skipped ahead to see if anyone dissented. Yup, Chief Justice Wells. He didn't come out and call them a bunch of liars, just said he didn't concur. I couldn't sleep because I saw on the news that, while the Florida House was going to endorse the Republican Electors tomorrow, well, today, really, Tuesday, the Florida Senate was going to wait until Wednesday. This bothered me because I was thinking they had to do it on the 12th. But after tossing and turning for a few hours I got up and finally read 3 USC 15, then went back and re-read 3 USC 5. You keep arguing, as did the Democrat law professors lecturing the Florida Legislature, that there's no problem with the currently certified panel of Electors so no reason for the Legislature to act. Wrong. 3 USC 5 doesn't apply when there are unresolved controversies concerning the appointment of Electors, which there are. Boy, are there. The Florida Supreme Court still hasn't decided what to do about the 25,000 Seminole and Martin County absentee ballots, and the US Supreme Court is still chewing over the manual recount. So Florida has lost the conclusivity provided by 3 USC 5. Well, the day has not even begun yet, but let's assume the controversy won't be ended. Fair assumption. Then you look at 3 USC 15, and, we have to assume for the sake of the argument that on December 18, both Republican and Democrat Electors meet in Tallahassee and send their votes to Congress, which I believe will happen. In that case, "the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted." Which means, the way I read it, that Governor Bush needs to sign the Proclamation or whatever they are going to pass, of the Florida Legislature, and then it's a done deal. So now I can go back to sleep.