Re: Vote for Bush! Re: Pres Bush Left

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

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:02:30 GMT

"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cl972l$9q5$3@news.ums.edu...
> Mark Cook (mcook@prodigy.net) wrote:
> : "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.
>
> Amend the Constitution rather than throw it to the SC.

There is no need, the final judgement came from Congress on 1/6/2001.

> : 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.
>
> The Supreme Court by it very nature are NOT representatives of the people!
> They are appointed and are the farthest thing in governemnt from the
> people. We vote for presidents/VP (executive branch). We vote for
> congressmen (legislative branch). We DON'T vote for judges on the SC
> (judicial branch). They are appointed. All your details above be they
> accurate or not have lead you to a false conclusion. Reread your
> capitalization above and explain how the SC fits in constitutionally. You
> can't!
>
> Eric

The Supreme Court did not decide the election, they only upheld Florida
Code. They could NOT craft a remedy that would have allowed Gore to win
Florida outright. That would have been a violation of the Electoral Count
Act of 1887.

Every election since 1888 has been finalized in Congress. In 2001, Congress
had the opportunity to throw out Bush's slate of Electors, but the MAJORITY
of the Representatives of the PEOPLE would NOT sign on, thus Congress
ACCEPTED Florida Electors and allowed the to be counted.

IF Gore could have gotten the support he need in Congress, i.e. the
REPRESENTATIVES of the PEOPLE, he could have thrown out Bush's slate of
Florida Electors, then since neither would have had the 270 votes needed to
win, the race would have ended up in the House of Representatives. Using the
same members that supported him in his challenge of Bush electors would have
been able to vote him into office.

Quantcast