Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:46:59 +0000 (UTC)

Mark Cook (mcook@prodigy.net) wrote:
: "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,

Yes they did! Gore backed off after the SC ruling.

: 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.

That is hardly the same as the Congress deciding. That was an issue of the
Black Caucus and NOT Congres as a whole. Get your facts straight!

: "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.

Right, a protest. Hardly a decree!

: 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

Loading