aaron
|
|
response 10 of 14:
| 
Dec 5 17:54 UTC 2000 |
Asking for the basis of somebody's legal argument is not "legal bullying".
Certainly my request that you provide a simple reference to the statute
upon which your argument rests is not "legal bullying." If you don't feel
comfortable defending your assertions of law, I suggest you couch your
arguments in different terms. If you can't support your positions, and
choose to make baseless insults when called upon to do so, do feel free to
make good on your threat to take your ball and go home.
|
carson
|
|
response 11 of 14:
|
Dec 5 18:37 UTC 2000 |
resp:8 (no, it's "not *state* law." no one [here] ever said it was,
but that's the law to which albaugh referred. isn't that what you
asked for?)
(now, if you want to duck behind the "it's not state law!" mantra
[which I hear is quite arguable], feel free to do so. that doesn't
change the federal law.)
(you're more right when you imply Congress has/had no authority to
pass such a law, but that's a matter for the courts. it's a law
until it's off the books, right?)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 14:
|
Dec 5 19:03 UTC 2000 |
OK. Here we go (all quotes from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/FedLaw.ht
ml):
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in
each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,
in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and
Vice President (USC 3, Chap 1, Sec 1).
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing
electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by
law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a
manner as the legislature of such State may direct (USC 3, Chap 1,
Sec 2).
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 (USC 3, Chap 1, Sec 5).
Seems clear to me: Unless Florida's legislature passed a law allowing
them to determine the electors before November 7 of this year, they can't.
The recounting and contesting procedures they've established can be used,
but they can't just throw that all over and say, "Here are our electors."
They *could* have done so a month ago, before the election was held, but
not now.
What have I mis-interpreted?
|
aaron
|
|
response 14 of 14:
|
Dec 5 19:12 UTC 2000 |
Joe - that depends upon how you read the statute. If you read section five
as creating a "safe harbor" for appointment of electors - "meet these
requirements, and Congress will leave your appointments alone" - there is
no inconsistency with section two. The difference is, Congress may challenge
the appointment made under section two, as it does not fall under the
"safe harbor" of section five. This *is* inconsistent with how the Republicans
have argued that section five should be interpreted, but would be consistent
with the position advanced by the Democrats.
Also, while the statute itself may be an unconstitutional interference with
the appointment of electors by the state legislatures, there is nothing in
the Constitution itself which would prohibit the legislature from acting.
However, there is some question as to whether the legislature's action would
be permitted under broader constitutional arguments, or whether it would be
consistent with Florida's own laws. Also, a legislative act appointing
electors would have to be signed by Jeb Bush to become effective - and I'm
not sure it would be good for G.W. for that to happen.
|