Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left

From: Mark Cook (mcook_at_prodigy.net)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:54:04 GMT

"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cl68rn$7n5$5@news.ums.edu...
> Eric (notValid@comcast.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > A fair society would have simply thrown out all the votes in FLA from
> : > election day except the absentee ballots and revoted the following
> : > Tuesday.
> : >
> : Nonsense! Here, let me interpret for you:
> : "A fair society would have simply thrown out all the votes in FLA from
> : election day and re-voted till the Democrats got the results they
wanted"
>
> No, The Republicans would not allow a revote and would argue until one
> thing or another in their corrupt power structure got their man in power.
>
> And by golly THAT is exactly what happened!

The FACTS show otherwise. Lawsuits were filed in Florida as to get a
re-vote. A re-vote was denied by the DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court.
The Court had 6 Democrats, and 1 Independant. They rules 7-0 that the US
Constitution sets the time for elections, thus a revote would violate the US
Constitution.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/revote.pdf

The case that upheld Judge Jorge Labarga's ruling by the Democrat majority
of the Florida Supreme Court.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2373.pdf

The re-vote was denied because it would violate both Federal Code and the US
Constitution. I suggest that you take the time to educate yourself on the
subject.

Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution: The Congress may determine
the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their
Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Congress did so in the Federal Code.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000001---
-000-.html

> : By what criteria would you "throw out all the vote"? How many times
would
> : you do it?
>
> No, too close to call, so revote one week later. No disputes and make sure
> all manner of hanging chads,

Before this election, the Florida Courts had ruled that hanging chads were
not a reason to do recount. IF that is not enough for a recount, it is
hardly a good reason to do an unconstitutional re-vote.

"(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
recount because of the claim that a county's machines were failing to count
partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral Arg. in Bush,
at 39-40 (concession of Florida Attorney General that no county had
previously done so). For example, in Broward County Canvassing Board v.
Hogan, 607 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the board recognized that
"voter error in piercing of computer ballot cards created loose or hanging
paper chads." But the board declined to do a manual recount even though two
machine counts indicated a margin of 3-5 votes. "Such voter errors, the
board explained, are caused by hesitant piercing, no piercing, or
intentional or unintentional multiple piercing of computer ballot cards,
creating what are referred to as overvotes and undervotes. The board
thereupon declined appellee's request for a recount". Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, before this election, the fact that a request for a manual recount was
based on incompletely perforated chads was considered not just insufficient,
but an affirmative reason to reject a manual recount because the request was
based on voter error rather than on machine or ballot defects."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf

> butterfly ballots

The FSC ruled that the butterfly ballot was a legal ballot. They relied on a
Federal Court case that says a candidate does NOT have a constitutional
right to a certain place on a ballot.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2373.pdf

>and all precincts are counted.

"But no one claims that these ballots have not previously been tabulated;
they were initially read by voting machines at the time of the election, and
thereafter reread by virtue of Florida’s automatic recount provision. No one
claims there was any fraud in the election. The Supreme Court of Florida
ordered this additional recount under the provision of the election code
giving the circuit judge the authority to provide relief that is
“appropriate under such circumstances.” Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html

> : Absurd!
>
> The absurdity is your not wanting a fair outcome. The NFL has the
> challenge system because of the beliefs of people like you.
>
> Eric (not the Comcast idiot)

The absurdity is that you do not want to follow the law, and the US
Constitution. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 was put into place as to allow
for election disputes to be settled by the REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE.