Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left

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

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:01:45 GMT

"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cl68c6$7n5$3@news.ums.edu...
> mcook@prodigy.net (mcook@prodigy.net) wrote:
> : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote in message
news:<cl3k49$j2p$2@news.ums.edu>...
> : > mcook@prodigy.net (mcook@prodigy.net) wrote:
> : > : "*** Morris" <ramorris@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:<10n65a47lshcm74@corp.supernews.com>...
> : > : > "Dale" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
> : > : > news:4172166E.8010000@citilink.com...
> : > : > >
> : > : > >
> : > : > > P. Edward Murray wrote:
> : > : > > > Josh, yes you are correct. The Bushies took the matter to the
supreme
> : > : > > > court and they ruled that it would take too long to do a
recount. So,
> : > : > > > instead of finding out who really won, the supreme court
selected Bush
> : > : > > > as our next president...never mind that there were a heck of a
lot of
> : > : > > > folks that were turned away at the polls, never mind the
"Butterfly
> : > : > > > Ballot" that led quite a few old timers to vote for Buchanan
(sp?)
> : > : > > > rather than Gore, never mind all these things were
particularly
> : > : > > > dishonest.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > He cheated...end of story.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Ed
> : >
> : > : The only problem with this analysis is that the recount by the FSC
was
> : > : non-binding. Bush was already the certified winner of the state.
Under
> : > : the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress was not required to accept
> : > : the recount as ordered by the FSC.
> : >
> : > 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.
> : >
> : > Eric
>
> : That would be a violation of the US Constitution. The Electoral Count
> : Act of 1887 allows for Congress, i.e. our elected representatives, to
> : settle these disputes.
>
> Huh, it took the Supreme Court to do it. Was that not a violation of the
> Constitution?

The US Supreme Court did not settle the dispute, that was settled in
Congress on 1/6/2001. The Congressional Black Caucus challenged Bush's
Florida Electors, but they could not get any Senator from the Democrat
majority to sign on.

"Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.

A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."

http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm

> Besides the Constitution is passe whenever one can raise
> the specter of "national security". Granted the 2000 election was not an
> issue of national security, but 9/11 was. Did you see how fast the
> Constitution was circumvented because of the events of 9/11? It simply was
> useless WRT a terrorist attack, hence something else took its place. In
> fact, we have becoem more and more a National Security State ever since
> WWII.
>
> Eric