Freedom2 sez:
Not sure I’m familiar with USS. Do they, by chance, wear brown shirts? With cunningly fashionable armbands?
If the Florida Leg, decides AFTER the election, that it will select the Electors by vote in the Leg, instead of following the popular vote, as that Leg’s rules already passed, there will be HUGE problems. That will mean, that ANY State, whose Legislature has a majority different from that than the Electors, can ignore the popular vote & send their own set in. So, whats to stop some Dem state, which had a narrow Bush victory, from invalidating their set of electors, and sending in their own? According to the Republicans, there does not need to be a reason- they can do so “just because”.
I am sorry, but if any of you Bush supporters can justify this- you are dead morally wrong. This means that WE have no vote at all, that any State can, any time, for any reason, ignore the voters, even if there was an overwhelming victory for the “other side”.
If Bush does this, I do hope the SCOTUS gives him a well deserved spanking- re “ex post facto laws”.
Eluc- freedom (whose anti-gore posts have come very close to him “welshing”) means the Secret Service. Don’t worry, you’re safe.
“Which is why I look forward to the Legislature doing exactly what it looks like they are gonna do, and good ol’ Jeb signing off on it. That alone will overshadow any and all acts by Gore up to this point in terms of legitimacy, and seal Dubya’s fate in the hostory books as the only president ever to ascend to office by blatant theft.”
Stoidela, you’ve never heard of Rutherford B. Hayes?
Obviously, you are right on the first count. Apologies, Freedom2, I misunderstood the thrust of your remark and attributed entirely unworthy motives to it. You apparently believe, as do I, in brisk and acerbic contention, no holds barred, no offense taken, no gentlemen need apply.
Or, as Dan Akroyd put it so well, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
As to the second count, “No ones liberty and property are safe as long as the Legislature is in session.”
A few points:
-
Electors vote in their respective state capitals, not DC.
-
Ex post facto bills are completely different, and irrelevant to this discussion.
-
SCOTUS does not decide which electors are valid, Congress does.
-
A large number of the electors are bound by law to vote as they pledged (29 states have such laws, I believe)
-
There is nothing in the Constitution preventing the legislature from choosing electors after election day.
-
Title 3, Section 5 of US Code does provide for the judicial branch to decide questions of law in each state before certifying electors.
If the courts give the election to Gore, which is highly unlikely at this point, legally those are the ones that are valid. I suspect there are enough honest people in the US Congress to swing the vote in favor of Gore if it comes to choosing between two slates of electors. Especially if it is the FSSC that decided the case.
Daniel…
I struggled with this in the begining, but then Gore showed me the light. Neither candidate has gotten ANY Electoral votes yet. Once the Electoral college meets, or if Gore concedes, I will abide by a strict no Gore bitch policy until tax day.
And even with that caveat, I have not really bitched that much about Gore in particular this last month. Just take a look at Stoidela’s anti-Bush tirades, and compare them with my posts, I promise you will see a difference.
I know, I feel like I’m squirming out of the bet, but if Gore doesn’t have to conced yet, neither do I. I’m holding out for 129 electoral voters changing their vote from Gore to Bush in disgust. 
Freedom- there ain’t NO gods chile thinkin it was a LANDSLIDE for Bush. Not even Bush, ferkrisake. It don’ matter how much lil’ stoid done whine, you promised you would not whine & cry- honeychil. 
Re: Ex-post-facto, etc- the Florida St Legis has already passed a Bill saying how these who 'select their Electors"- it’s called the “election”. They cannot go back AFTER the Election, which was held under their rules, and say “That was nice, we are going to ignore what we passed, and the election held under that Bill, and now decide we’re gonna do it another way- for that last election”. Nope, no-way- if they do that they might as well call out the state militia now.
Again- if that is legal for them, it will be legal for ANY state to do it- if that legistlature did not like the results- if that was true, they would have done it by now. And, the Hayes, and other Elections, held in the 19th Century, were done under a different set of rules.
Besides- if it IS legal, then there are far more Democratic legislatures (esp in larger states) than GOP one- thus, all one of them has to do is invalidate THEIR Bush Electors, and send Gore ones instead.
That is not relevant to the case here. As I see it, three things are relevant from US Code.
Title 3, Section 1:
Title 3, Section 2:
Title 3, Section 5:
By my interpretation, this means that (by sec. 2) the legislature can appoint electors if Florida failed to make a choice on election day. Thus, it seems the legislature is able to act in the absence of any other solution. At least according to the relevant federal laws. However, any electors certified due to election results and subsequent legal challenges would take precedence. If it went to Congress to decide, they would perhaps be able to say that the courts were incorrect to award Gore the electors, which I think would be unlikely if the uncounted (as of now) votes show a definite Gore win.
Then again, there’s always Florida’s laws, which I haven’t researched as fully. Times like this, I wonder why the hell I’m majoring in computer science. Law is so much fun.
OK, maybe not “ex post facto”, per se, but against Sec 5, and against common sense. The decision has “been made 6 days prior”- however, that decision could be changed, from what I see.
The legislature could claim that the state “failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law” (this seems to be referring to election day), thus allowing it to invoke Section 2. There doesn’t seem to be a description given to cover how this determination is made, at least not in US Code. I don’t think there are any precedents, either.
The scenario would be as follows: the American People would realise what kind of a man G.W.Bush is and rise against him. The man SHOULD NOT be allowed to run the most powerful country in the world. He has done everything he can to prevent a fair count of all votes, and it seems to me that Americans are buying his marketing strategy. Don’t get brainwashed - PLEASE! It lies in your hands to defend democracy
Half of the voters chose him, my dear.
yosemitebabe!
That only goes to show how strong his marketing strategy is! The way he has behaved after election day shows clearly that he is ready to be President - no matter what! You don’t know that half the voters voted for him - he is doing everything he can to prevent the real outcome to be known. MIND YOU - if the situation was turned around he would be doing exactly what Al Gore is doing now - trying to figure out THE REAL RESULTS!
:rolleyes:
What, are you related to Stoidela? Do attend special classes where they coach you to spew this stuff?
It should be, “do you attend…”
George Bush’s clever marketing strategy caused me to make that error.
I have no idea who this St+++++ character is, and I don’t attend any classes to spew any stuff out. Bush simply isn’t President material - he is the kind of man you would find running a corporate company where his ruthlessness would come in handy.
Geez. I’m amazed that no one has thought of the obvious way in which Gore becomes our next President.
Bill, overjoyed that his wife will be stuck in Washington half the year while Bill’s back in New York with his ‘interns’ ‘writing’ his ‘memoirs’, drops dead of a Big Mac-induced heart attack.
As Vice-President, Al Gore is sworn as the 43rd President, to serve the next month-and-a-half. Bingo- Al’s our ‘next’ president.
As for Gore actually winning the election- it’s certainly possible. Gore could win his appeal with the FLSC (and have his appeal upheld (or at least not overturned) by the USSC), and a hurried recount shows him winning; or one of the judges in the Seminole or Marlin cases could throw out enough Bush votes to give Gore the victory. While the state legislature is talking about securing electors, I expect that most of their support is coming from those who worry that lawsuits will prevent Florida from sending any electors, and thus this is (despite Stoidela’s hyperbole) a safety measure. Should Gore legally gain a certified popular majority in Florida, I expect the legislature to back down and accept Gore’s electors.
Care to place a small wager on that?
wring- Sure. I am willing to bet that if either:
A.) Gore wins the appeal of Saul’s verdict and such appeal is not overturned by the USSC, and a recount is finished before the 12th and such recount results in Gore winning Florida
or
B.) either of the two absentee ballot lawsuits results in enough votes being disqualified to give Gore the election
then the Florida state legislature will back down and allow Gore’s slate of electors to be submitted to the Electoral College.
Again, while I don’t doubt that there are a few legislators who would like to force a Bush slate no matter who wins, I feel that most of the legislators will be loathe to overturn a legal result. I still feel they’re moving forward mostly to ensure that some slate of electors gets sent to the EC even if lawsuits and appeals are still outstanding come the 12th.