|
|
|
|
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .
"Mark Cook" wrote in message
om...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .
"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .
"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser
at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:
just after Bush stole his first presidency.
Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you
found
a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower
of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap.
What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many
times.
???
Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.
Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the
accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful.
The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body
that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.
True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme
Court
that
voted to stop the recount.
Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??
I have no idea.
I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.
I am?
I don't think so.
I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."
For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of
the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida
Supreme
Court.
How would Go
1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???
2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida
Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to
vote
on
12/14/2000)??
3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from
disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5????
4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US
House???
Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in
mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html
I have no idea.
As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who
you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php
However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry
both
lost.
Actually, Clinton won.
I think you mean Al Gore.
And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme
Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.
Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.
No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view
it
this
way.
I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says
if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with
the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.
Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the
state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of
the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs.
Harris).
They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.
At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US
House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted,
the
new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The
US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie
breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled
by
the
Republicans.
During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the
Republicans
made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken
away
via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal
change
in election law.
Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would
come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a
challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004),
they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore
cast
the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.
Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote
as
an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas
ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up
Bush's
electors.
That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of
Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to
the
slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might
have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5.
The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state
challenge,
or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution
gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.
Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is
not
proof Bush stole the election.
IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not
have
had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.
Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first
decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4
Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their
minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the
Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???
It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of
being
first to certification.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html
None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations
that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there
are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.
That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They
don't
care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into
office.
I don't think it is realistic to assume that all those people were
pro-Gore
or anti-Bush. What they see is a very messed up electoral process with a
very close result and a recount that was halted by judges that were
appointed by the governing party.
I guess they missed the fact that the judges appointed by the challenging
party violated the law as to get a shame of a recount, twice. I guess they
missed the fact that Congress controlled by that same challenging party
passed laws to protect the rights of the voter, BUT when those laws got in
the way that same challenging party tried to have those laws overturned in
violation of US Code.
|