We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should Gore concede POLL

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Qone0 who started this subject11/29/2000 3:06:53 PM
From: swedelo  Read Replies (1) of 312

Gee, I wonder why the U.S. Supreme court wanted to take up these issues.

>From the United States Code
: Title 3
: Chapter 1: Presidential elections and Vacancies
:Sec. 1. Time of appointing electors

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.

: Sec. 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day

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.

Sec. 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors

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

As I have believed since The Florida Supreme Court ruling, The Supreme
Court of the U.S. wants to hear this case so as to see this doesn't
happen again. Not only did the Florida Supreme court flaunt its' power
in usurping state law, but apparently stepped on Title3, Chapter 1,
Section 1 of the U.S. Code. It also has made it quite clear that (by the
Florida Supreme Court changing the date prescribed in Section 1) the
Florida Legislature now has full power, no matter the outstanding
judicial matters, to appoint the states electors pursuant to Title 3,
Chapter 1, Section 2 of the U. S. Code. Finally, I believe they (The
U.S. Supreme Court) will want to "spank" the Florida Supreme Court for
not making their determinations based on a "determination made pursuant
to such law so existing on said day". I believe they will indeed find
that by moving the day pursuant to Florida State Law & Federal Law for
certification of electors that they indeed overstepped their duties and
indeed "legislated", rather than interpreted law from the bench. CASE
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext