| |
 |
|
|
Hobby Forum Index » Music - Beatles » OT: Obama moves to the center...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale Houstman... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Frank from Deeetroit wrote:
Quote: "Jeff" <yourimageunreels at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:36bafcd8-4918-4e4f-962a-1af849c95713 at (no spam) e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 3:40 pm, fattuc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:42 am, Jeff <yourimageunre... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:51 am, Lord Buckeye <l_buck... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:57 pm, fattuc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
For those who are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith
I wonder if the other blacks will riot when he loses? I'm
serious.
Why do you think he'll lose?
No matter who wins or loses, I have faith in the US that there will
be a peaceful transition.
Not me. Gore won the popular vote, there was election fraud in
Florida. It was never looked into, and Bush becomes President.
Gore took his case to the Supreme Court and lost. Presidential
elections are not won on popular votes, the Electoral College
actually votes for the Prez. Coincidently, the Electoral College
follows the popular vote. Believe Bush won Florida by a little more
than 500 votes, popular. Gore is an idiot
Actually, the truth of who won Florida is forever an unknown factor,
because the Supreme Court (acting against its own stated support of
states' rights) intervened in the process at a chosen point, and
rendered further clarification impossible. Some readings of what might
have been make Gore the winner, some Bush. The point isn't who actually
won, but the fact that the Supreme Court violated its own basic beliefs
and froze the election process at a point seemingly beneficial to Bush.
If they had chosen a later date (or stayed out of it altogether, as they
should have) it might well have been a different outcome. Not that I
thought Gore was any genius - he couldn't even manage to pull in his own
state, which would have rendered Florida irrelevant. He ran a crappy
campaign, didn't challenge Bush where he should have challenged him, and
moved so far to the right that his great lead coming out of the
conventions (when he was talking "liberal") evaporated in a cloud of
erstaz-rightwingery. He got what he deserved no doubt. But the people
got cheated of information.
dmh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale Houstman... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
O'Leary III wrote:
Quote: Frank from Deeetroit wrote:
Gore took his case to the Supreme Court and lost. Presidential
elections are not won on popular votes, the Electoral College actually
votes for the Prez. Coincidently, the Electoral College follows the
popular vote. Believe Bush won Florida by a little more than 500
votes, popular. Gore is an idiot
Maybe you should have won the Nobel Prize.
Winning the Nobel Prize hardly makes Gore a genius: Henry Kissinger won
one too.
dmh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 3, 4:17 pm, UsurperTom <Usurper... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jul 2, 10:00 pm, "Frank from Deeetroit" <dadurwe... at (no spam) voyager.net
wrote:
The only non-common sense issue are the 4 dissenters.
Yes, this is an ideologically balanced court. Moderate justice
Anthony Kennedy is the Ringo of the Supreme Court.
I like the way you made this thread Beatles related.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| abe slaney... |
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 3, 10:00 pm, fattuc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Jul 3, 4:17 pm, UsurperTom <Usurper... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Yes, this is an ideologically balanced court. Moderate justice
Anthony Kennedy is the Ringo of the Supreme Court.
I like the way you made this thread Beatles related.
I like the way you like people who like you liking them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bernie Woodham... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DeOdnQ-2J7ZvffPVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
Quote:
Thanks for responding. It saved me a lot of trouble :-)
I was really hoping someone would have saved me the trouble.
Bernie 'all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing' Woodham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bernie Woodham... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"poisoned rose" <hearPortisheadThird at (no spam) free.napster.com> wrote in message
news:8pBbk.13143$uE5.1399 at (no spam) flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Quote: "RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for responding. It saved me a lot of trouble :-)
It's going to be a lonnnnng four months.
hee, hee. Sorry. I'll do my best to ignore any more posts by him, her, it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RichL... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
poisoned rose <hearPortisheadThird at (no spam) free.napster.com> wrote:
Quote: "RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for responding. It saved me a lot of trouble :-)
It's going to be a lonnnnng four months.
?
Four months? What's up with that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| RichL... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichL <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: poisoned rose <hearPortisheadThird at (no spam) free.napster.com> wrote:
"RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for responding. It saved me a lot of trouble :-)
It's going to be a lonnnnng four months.
?
Four months? What's up with that?
Never mind. Election. Got it.
Do you really think it's going to stop there? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The Weasel... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 4, 9:35 pm, "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamw... at (no spam) insightbb.com> wrote:
Quote: "The Weasel" <theoneandonlysuperwea... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eee25684-b933-4cbe-8ac4-4091c50378a0 at (no spam) y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 3, 12:55 am, Dale Houstman <d... at (no spam) skypoint.com> wrote:
Actually, the truth of who won Florida is forever an unknown factor,
If we follow the requirements of 3 U.S.C. section 5, we know that Bush
really won Florida. If the Democrats in the Florida Judiciary had
their way, and were allowed to rewrite Florida Election Code (in
violation of the rights of the State Legislature), then we have no
idea who would have won.
because the Supreme Court (acting against its own stated support of
states' rights)
This is false. The disputed was not a "states' rights" case, it was a
case about the rights of the state legislature.
No where in Florida Election Code is a standardless partial recount of
spoiled ballots authorized, yet the Democrat majority of the Florida
Supreme Court ordered
-------------------------------------------------------
Cutting out all the other crap
====================================> I dreaded having to wade through this miserable post. But, I finally did it
tonight. I have to say that the only people who could have been impressed
by this junk are people who didn't understand it to begin with.
Yet, you had to resort to cherry picking the law and making up your
own facts. From your attempt to respond to my post, it is clear that
you are one of those who still doesn't understand it.
Quote: Sounds nice and official, quoting judicial opinions and throwing out Chapter
and section numbers. But, reading what you have posted it's obvious to
anyone who understands it that you are skirting issues and (I think
purposely) misunderstanding what was said by the poster you are responding
to.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
Quote: We know that Bush "really" won Fl. because of 3 U.S.C section 5? How so?
That law allowed for Florida to resolve "any controversy or contest
concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by
judicial or other methods or procedures".
I notice that you had to cherry pick the law to make your argument.
Let's start with the FULL text of the law.
3 U.S.C. section 5:
"If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination
of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any
of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or
procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six
days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such
determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and
made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors,
shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral
votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated,
so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is
concerned."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.shtml
On 11/21/2000, the FSC ruled that the Florida Legislature wanted those
protections found in this code. On 12/3/2000, in a 9-0 decision, the
USSC said that the FSC could not change the laws without being in
violation of this code.
Bush v. Palm Beach, 12/3/2000, 9-0 decision, USSC:
"The Florida Supreme Court cited 3 U. S. C. §§1–10 in a footnote of
its opinion, App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a, n. 55, but did not discuss
§5. Since §5 contains a principle of federal law that would assure
finality of the State' s determination if made pursuant to a state law
in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advantage of
the "safe harbor" would counsel against any construction of the
Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionsup.htm
Now let's move forward to the order of the Florida Supreme Court. It
is not a question jurisdiction as you have tried to argue, it is a
question of following this part of the law.
"....by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the
electors...."
The Florida Legislature pointed out that the courts do not have the
power to rewrite the law in there orders. They must follow the laws
that were in place at the time.
"State courts may not invoke even the state constitution to
circumscribe this state legislative power. Bush, supra, at 5, 7. But 3
to say this is not at all to authorize state courts to circumscribe
the legislative power based on non-constitutional judicial views about
the best manner of choosing electors. To the contrary, state courts
have even less grounds to deviate from the state legislature’s
directions when they do not even have a purported basis in the state
constitution. Indeed, of all the possibilities that the Founders
considered when they decided to whom to give the power to appoint
Presidential electors, the one possibility that was universally
rejected by the Founders was to allow the manner of such appointments
to be controlled by state courts. See 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL
CONVENTION OF 1787, at 110 (Max Farrand ed. 1966) (James Madison: "The
State Judiciarys had not & he presumed wd. not be proposed as a proper
source of appointment" of the Presidential electors)."
What had been the law/election practice before the election? No manual
recounts for ballots spoiled by the voter. Even Gore's own Florida
Campaign Chair admitted, no such recount had ever been conducted in
the state's history. The Florida Legislature pointed out that the law
did not require such a recount. The argument had already been settled
in Broward v. Hogan in 1992, i.e. 8 years before the 2000 election.
"(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
recount because of a claim that a county’s machines were failing to
count partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral
Arg. in Bush, supra, 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 errors in the 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 denied 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
Again, if 3 U.S.C. section 5 is followed, then the FSC does not have
the right to order a standardless partial recount of the spoiled
ballots. Without those spoiled ballots, there is no need for a
recount.
Quote: The USSC prevented that by staying the recount on Dec. 9, 2000. Nowhere in
your post do you address the Court's justification for doing that. Usually
the defense is that the Court found violations of Equal Protection.
If you had read Bush v. Gore, then you wouldn't need anyone to address
the point. The opinion deals with Article II, Federal Law, i.e. the
Electoral Count Act of 1887, and as you point out, the 14th
Amendment.
When did the USSC lose it's power to address such issues?
Quote: But this
claim is greatly compromised by the Court's statement that the applicability
of their decision is ""limited to the present circumstances, for the problem
of equal protection in election processes generally presents many
complexities." Now, what exactly does that mean?
Again, if you had read Bush v. Gore, you would have known the true
answer. The dissent discusses the 1960 Hawaii dispute and the recount
that took place. Their argument fails because of Article II of the US
Constitution. It doesn't say that "all legislatures", it says that
"EACH LEGISLATURE".
Just because the Hawaii Legislature did not want to take advantage of
safe harbor, does not mean that the Florida Legislature cannot. The
Constitution clearly leaves it up to each state to make their own
decision on the matter.
The court could not say that Florida was not entitled to those
protections, nor can they order other states to take to protections.
Quote: I believe it means that
this violation of "equal protection" is present everywhere in America's
political system but it only counts in this particular election in this
particular state. In other words, the USSC had to find some reason to throw
the election.
Sorry, but your silliness doesn't win the day. The fact is, no court
in the land, even with a recount in hand, can remove a slate of
electors. It doesn't matter if Gore would have won 100 recounts, until
Congress rejects Bush's slate of state certified electors and agrees
that Gore's recounts are valid, he cannot win.
Justice Breyer explains this in his dissent of Bush v. Gore. His
argument was that the court should stay out of the issue because it
would be settled in Congress. If it wasn't for the violations of the
US Constitution and the precedent that the FSC would have set, I would
agree.
"To the contrary, the Twelfth Amendment commits to Congress the
authority and responsibility to count electoral votes. A federal
statute, the Electoral Count Act, enacted after the close 1876 Hayes-
Tilden Presidential election, specifies that, after States have tried
to resolve disputes (through “judicial” or other means), Congress is
the body primarily authorized to resolve remaining disputes. See
Electoral Count Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 373, 3 U.S.C. § 5 6, and 15.
The legislative history of the Act makes clear its intent to commit
the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the
courts:
“The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count
of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so
must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal
votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there
is no other constitutional tribunal.” H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong.,
1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select
Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President).
The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added:
“The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary
consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of
absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The
interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the
Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the
election of President should be a constituent body, in which the
States in their federal relationships and the people in their
sovereign capacity should be represented.” 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886).
“Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the
State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union
of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has
devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31.
The Act goes on to set out rules for the congressional determination
of disputes about those votes. If, for example, a state submits a
single slate of electors, Congress must count those votes unless both
Houses agree that the votes “have not been . . . regularly given.” 3
U.S.C. § 15. If, as occurred in 1876, one or more states submits two
sets of electors, then Congress must determine whether a slate has
entered the safe harbor of §5, in which case its votes will have
“conclusive” effect. Ibid. If, as also occurred in 1876, there is
controversy about “which of two or more of such State
authorities . . . is the lawful tribunal” authorized to appoint
electors, then each House shall determine separately which votes are
“supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”
Ibid. If the two Houses of Congress agree, the votes they have
approved will be counted. If they disagree, then “the votes of the
electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive
of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.” Ibid.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html
Quote: It's also very suspect that two of the justices were greatly relieved that a
Republican won the Presidency so they could retire.
It doesn't matter if all of these were for Bush and against Gore, that
does not change the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Quote: Your post is also very strange in that you seem to give more weight to the
Florida Court's dissenting opinion, rather than the opinion that carried the
decision. Why don't you side with the USSC dissenting opinion also?
Talk about strange, this takes the cake. The USSC supports the dissent
of the FSC, yet you wonder why I would be constant and support the
same argument from these decisions.
Why do you believe that a person can take both sides of the issue??
Quote: You think the USSC's case was a case of the rights of the State's
legislature? Not so. The Florida legislature had appointed the right to
resolve legal disputes over election statutes to the judiciary.
That is not the issue. You have ignored the larger point.
Quote: So, what
your basically saying is that the USSC can allow the Florida legislature to
reverse it's law when the results of that law is not to it's liking. If
that's a state right we're all in trouble.
What kind of logic is this?????????? In 1992, the courts refuse to
order a recount of spoiled ballots. The Florida Legislature has 8
years to add such a law, they do not. Gore's own Florida Campaign
Chair admits that no such recount has taken place in the state's
history. The Florida Legislature argues that the law does not support
such a count.
But when the FSC REWRITES the law, you claim that the Florida
Legislature has reversed it's law.
Quote: Lastly, I believe DH was talking about the "readings" of a recount had the
recount been allowed to continue.
So what? Who cares about a meaningless, non-binding, post-
certification, standardless, partial recount of the spoiled ballots.
If the USSC had let it continue, Gore still loses because it violated
Florida Code.
If the USSC had not made such a determination, the Florida
Legislature, and/or the US House would have.
Quote: But you totally "decide" to miss his
point and instead focus on the slate of electors chosen after the recount
was vacated. Pretty lame of you.
I guess your argument is so lame that you are now forced to make up
your own facts. Bush electors were chosen BEFORE the USSC took either
Bush v. Palm Beach or Bush v. Gore. If you look at a calender, you
would see that December comes AFTER November.
"Governor Jeb Bush signs the Certificate of Ascertainment designating
25 Florida electors pledged to George W. Bush and transmits the
document to the National Archives as required by Title 3, U.S. Code,
Section 6."
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php
Quote: But I guess you just had to find a reason
to say, "On 1/6/2001, Gore lost a challenge to Bush's Florida Electors in
Congress, thus giving Bush the white house."
Well DUH, it is called fact. Of course I am going to point it out.
"To the contrary, the Twelfth Amendment commits to Congress the
authority and responsibility to count electoral votes. A federal
statute, the Electoral Count Act, enacted after the close 1876 Hayes-
Tilden Presidential election, specifies that, after States have tried
to resolve disputes (through “judicial” or other means), Congress is
the body primarily authorized to resolve remaining disputes. See
Electoral Count Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 373, 3 U.S.C. § 5 6, and 15."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html
Quote: Anyone who watched this occur,
(it can be seen in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"), could have seen what
a dispicable sight it was.
This explains everything. Michael Moore. No wonder you are so
confused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:19 am
|
|