I'm throwing this one out to those legal eagle types on the board -

If this situation goes to court and isn't resolved before the legal end of the term of the sitting president, who becomes president ? Would there be someone 'temporary' since the VP is involved in the case and is one of the contenders ?

What does the Constitution say about this situtation ?

Just a question to slap the 'ole brain around ;-)

j

-- j (jw_hsv@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000

Answers

Check out this site. It's an article by a "legal eagle" regarding the possible scenarios.

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), November 09, 2000.

Guess it would help if I actually included the site in my answer, huh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001109/t000107350.html

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), November 09, 2000.

I keep trying to put this up. Hope it works this time.

http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001109/t000107350.html

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), November 09, 2000.

I understand that if this should happen, the speaker of the house becomes president after that it goes to the cabinet. The constitution does provide a lengthy succession. We may see this play out, it seems that they may recount Wisconsin and Iowa. I just read that a county in North Dakota discovered that they counted 4,018 votes that didn't exsist. Perhaps we should consider have the whole country revote.

-- Del (dgrinolds@gvtel.com), November 09, 2000.

The House of Representatives would then appoint a president. But don't worry, I heard this afternoon on radio that jessie jackson is down in Florida calling for riots in the streets if al gore isn't elecxted president. So everything is under control if that bozo is down there. Looks like it's going to be the race card once again.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 09, 2000.

You are so right the race card has been played. The Democrates have proven that they will do ANYTHING to win . They have sent thier race card bulldog in to Florida (Jesse Jackson) the man couldn't get himself elected dog catcher but the press will give him national coverage. Don't be surprised if he doesn't stir this into a 1960's style burning and looting riot. My prayers go out to my fellow citizens in Florida who will become the victims of Jesse Jackson irrational fear mongering.

-- Del (dgrinolds@gvtel.com), November 09, 2000.

Good site Laura. Everything was fine until the conclusion, I quote " Gore, however, would then have to occupy himself with the real possibility that he was the legitimate president-elect. In such a case, one would hope that Gore would accept a lesser but worthy alternative office as the chairman of the Campaign for the 27th Amendment: the final repeal of the electoral college. Upon that subject, he could well secure the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans." Being fron a rural area I certainly would not support this. The Electorial system gives the rural folks at least a little hope.

-- JLS (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), November 09, 2000.

Just a side note: One of the pizza resteraunt chains already has a commercial making fun of the situation!

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000.

It is my understanding that the electoral college cannot be repealed by amendment. It is included in three sections of the constitution, and anything in more than two cannot be repealed or amended. It would require a re-write of the constitution, something the militias are unlikely to tolerate as that would open the door for striping all of us of our rights guaranteed by the constitution.

-- Patriot (silentrunner_again@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000.

What happens when riots start? The fed goons are sent in. What if rioting starts across the country? The president calls a state of emergency and we become occupied by our own troops. Reno stated that it is not yet a federal matter. What is Clinton waiting for? Why isn't he on every station demanding resolution, telling Gore and Bush to tone it down or at least trying to sooth us into thinking it's no big deal? There are good reasons to remain calm (not implying that any here are wound up). Hopefully it will all blow over because if it doesn't, it could get bloody.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

The recount is over and Bush came out ahead again. Now the others are demanding another recount because of pencil marks drawn around the circle, and not punched. This is not right. Looking at them one by one looking for pencil marks. They would have to do ALL the states like this, not just one. If the ballot was not punched right, then it wasn't. I can't believe how ugly the Dem's are getting over this. Just wait for the absentees, whoever wins, wins. The recount starts over tomorrow morning, I can't believe this.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), November 10, 2000.

OK gang, the recount is over and W Bush won by 327 votes. Let's get on with it and ignore al gore and his bunch of mobsters.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.

If 19,000 discarded votes don't mean anything to you then I'm not sure you should call yourselves Americans. 19,000 misstakes that happen to be only against Gore. Notice that no errors on Bush side of ballot. Do you think 19,000 Americans went to the polls just to have their vote discounted. If the error went both ways fine. But even if Gore got only 1% he was the winner. This was wrong and needs addressed. This is not only Gore or Bush. This is about what is right!

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 10, 2000.

No one complained when 15,000 ballots in the same county were thrown out for the same reason the last presidential election. But, oh yeah I remember now, stuff like that only matters if it's a problem for democrats.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.

Well, actually, not all the 19000 mistakes affected just Gore; that is the spin the Dems are putting on it to get folks all emotional. There were 1000s of ballots that were in error where folks voted for two local candidates, local issues, judges, senate posts, etc....just because a ballot is tossed out for error doesn't mean it was an error involving the presidential vote...don't believe everything literally, remember, these are politicians and some of them tend to embellish facts. FACT: not nearly every one of the 19000 mistakes involved the presidential race...get real.

-- JimR (jroberts1@cas.org), November 10, 2000.

Well, Pat Buchanan might care. Perhaps it would be of interest to him to find out how well he did in Florida, since this inaccurately reflects his vote tally. He came out and said that he thinks his votes are overinflated. He said this yesterday.

btw, if 15,000 votes were discarded before, it still speaks to a travesty of the election process. It wasn't right then, either. And the fact that stupid people vote all the time isn't particularly new. Should we make it hard for stupid people to vote? Or do you think easier? This sounds like the good ol' voting tests that illegally required people (particularly of color) to take tests before they could register to vote. Let's not go back to that again.

And if YOUR candidate were in the same situation, he would be doing something similar (one would hope) to ensure that the democratic process was being respected.

Bush, Gore, who cares? Nothing is going to get done for at least two years until Congress gets better aligned for decision making. Let's not rush into this just b/c we are uncomfortable with it.

Also btw, I am not at all happy about the turn of events making this whole election look like a *&#)( circus, especially to the rest of the world. And... I hate having to try to remain impartial throughout this, because my candidate doesn't appear to be winning, nor will he likely, based on the absentee vote. Oh well. Our system of govenment is way more important than any candidates, no matter who we like best.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 10, 2000.

Marrile Maitlyn (sp?) reported last night that most of the 19,000 ballots were ballots that voters questioned the officials about, recieved new ballots, and voted again. There were not 19,000 Gore votes tossed. This info is not being reported to much elsewhere. Why is that?

If anyone has looked at that ballot and was truly confused, I would submit, that voting, is probably only one of many difficulties these people have.

Remember the law. Any ballot marked incorrectly, tampered w/, etc. is tossed. Always has been this way. Is the law to be tossed because gore didn't win? If I made a mistake by not reading the ballot correctly, who's fault is that? Should I be able to contest the results because I'm a moron?

The electoral college has been working for what? 109 elections? How about just letting it work. When the ballots are all counted, declare a winner and be done w/ it. John

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

This doesn't address the original question, but the thread seems to have meandered. Last I heard, it is Florida State Law that when the vote is less than 1/2 of 1% difference between two candidates, they MUST do a recount. So don't blame the Democrats -- blame 'smaller state government'. But I thought everyone wanted states to govern themselves.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 10, 2000.

That's right about the recount being Florida law. What most of us are complaining about is that now that the required recount has been conducted, the democrats want another recount because the first recount didn't come out in their favor and if that's still dosen't work, they want a revote in just that one county made up of people on welfare.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.

Some interesting answers so far. The LA Times provides some good food for thought.

Up until recently, I lived in Florida. I can't say that the process is really any different (from a mistake standpoint) here in Alabama. If you made a mistake on a ballot and you know it, you will be given another one to use.

Here in Alabama (at least around HSV), the ballot reader validates the ballots when you submit it. In Florida, you deposit the ballot in a lock-box and you're on your way. You don't (or can't) know if you made any mistakes.

I can see from a validation standpoint, having a ballot 'checker' at the polling place would virtually eliminate *bad* (defined as incorrectly marked) ballots. There are additional costs involved but then how much is it costing to count again...and again...and again?

I think the issue of having to remove a sitting president due to judicial action over election results could have some interesting impacts.

And FWIW, I believe having to visit the polling place and physically marking a ballot IS the best way of voting. Having worked with computer systems for 20+ years, I have little faith in the *incorruptability* of computerized vote _casting_ (please note the distiction between _casting_ and _tabulating_ the results).

...and now back to the fray...

J

-- j (jw_hsv@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

I believe that someone valadating the vote to help those that need it would be a good idea. But many are missing the point. Voting should not be difficult or misleading in any way. If it is then it is wrong. There are many older voters that have honest problems and they should be addressed. What, you have no family members with disabilities? How about hearing or sight problems? I guess we can just call them names like moron or stupid and not correct anything. But why do nothing when all 3 canidates admit Pat got votes by misstake and probally a lot more than 3 or 4 hundred. It is kind of funny that the gov. of the state is a Bush. Guess Gore kind of got Bushwacked. If Bush had any moral values at all he would conceide and go back to Texas. I get tired of hearing it was always that way. As if that makes it right. If it is broke then fix it. Lip service is cheap.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 10, 2000.

Nick- The time to fix a problem like this is before it happens, not after you don't get what you want. This particular county has had problems with invalid ballots for at least the last 4 elections. Thier percentage of ballots tossed out because they were improperly filled out has been much higher than the FL average over this time and this election was no different. The ballot that was used was designed with larger type and laid out in a way that people with poor eyesight could better read and understand it. It was printed in all the local papers beforhand (as required by law) and distributed by mail so that all had a chance to examine it before they went to vote. By the way, this was all done under the auspices of the local election commissioner who was en elected democrat. That hte people whose ballots had to be destroyed took this process so lightly as to not do their homework and exercise their right to vote with utmost diligence is no one's fault but hteir own and they should live with the consequences rather than trying to change the system after the fact.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), November 10, 2000.

I wonder if at least part of this came about because the democrats always go into areas where there are a lot of people who can't read or write or speak English and tell them to vote and pay them to vote but they don't bother to let these people know that there are ways they can become informed voters. All they tell is to "vote for the democrat guy". Prior to the election it's on TV every day showing democrats going into these areas telling people to vote for them. I think eligable voters should be allowed to vote even if they can't read or speak English, but they should be responsible voters and know what they're doing.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), November 10, 2000.

Nick, I agree with you -- 19,000 votes MATTER! If my ballot had been invalidated, yeah, I'd be mad as hell, I'd want the situation fixed NOW, this election, not sometime in the future. I hear people saying, "for the good of the country" Gore should just concede...what hogwash! For the "good of the country" the people's right to vote should be subverted?! THAT is NOT for the "good" of my country! Free & fair elections -- yes, that's the deal we all were born into or signed up for. And to demand that, as close to perfectly as we can get it, is not "whining", is not playing "the race card", is not being duped because we-no-speaks-da-Inglish-so-we-must-stupid

-- snoozy (allen@oz.net), November 10, 2000.

I'm soory folks but the fact that this one county in Florida can't get it right is simply a case of natural selection at work. If you haven't the brains to understand your ballot then perhaps you shouldn't be making decisions of this importance. Over the 25 plus years that I've voted in national ,local,and state elections I've been exposed to many ballot formats. Including the one used in Florida. I have never been confused. The ballot is printed in the local papers days before and the election officials at the polls instruct voters on the way in. NO EXCUSE TO BE CONFUSSED!!! Well with New Mexico, Wisconsin.Iowa and Oregon still up for grabs Bush may not need Florida and they can crawl back under thier rocks again till we must deal with them again in 4 years.

-- Del (dgrinolds@gvtel.com), November 10, 2000.

(Whoops - I accidently hit the submit button in the middle of my righteous indignation...) You people who think that as long as your ballot got counted, tough luck to the rest -- y'all need some serious lessons in citizenship.

-- snoozy (allen@oz.net), November 10, 2000.

Let me say this again. 19,000 votes DID NOT GET THROWN AWAY!!! 19,000 invalid ballots got thrown away. The majority of those 19,000 ballots were given to the officials at the polling places when people realized they had made a mistake. New ballots were issued. Votes were then cast. The rest were improperly marked,and tossed as invalid. This is in accordance w/ the law.

How would know your vote was wrong, if you didn,t know at the time it was cast? No one was complaining about their votes or the ballot, till after the election. How did they figure out they made a mistake?

The ballot is simple and easy to understand. There are people at the polls who will help if you have questions. I saw an elderly guy get help the other morning.

I don't understand why we can't just wait and see how many valid votes there are and elect the guy who has the most. And why do I hear people saying the guy w/ the most valid votes at this point, should concede? John

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

Have you noticed that the error could only happen between pat B. and Gore and that there was no error on the Bush side? That sounds like pre meditated set up. If the errors happened both ways I might not be so concerned. What are chances of this happening in this manner without a set-up? I agree things should be cleaned up sooner but until this election most of the country did not know it was there. But there are many complaints on dirty republican tactics. Unlike Bush I don't believe his family was born to lead us. He is not a blue blood or royal. Also look at the cross section of people upset about this. Just about everyone is represented. The news just stated the balot was not legal. Those counties may have to revote. Bush should just go back to Texas and have another strong drink.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 10, 2000.

Hey, Two pistols and twenty paces, should take care of the problem, if there is still a tie after this I think we ought to let it go to the better man. Harry Browne

-- Richard V.Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 10, 2000.

Wow John, thanks for the info. After watching this on the news, I kept thinking, how do all these protesters know for certain that they cast the incorrect votes? Just a hunch? How do they prove it in court? And if they were given new ballots, why haven't we heard this on the news? Propaganda maybe? The total number of votes have not been counted for the whole country and everyone is already up in arms. Thanks to the media. But I guess they're getting what they wanted....ratings, and to hell with what happens to the country.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), November 10, 2000.

Please bear with me as I speak my mind on a few things. First and formost we in the USA do not live in a demarcracy but in a republic. We elect people to represent us. The electoral college has been both at its best and worst in this election. The best look at all the visits both canidates made to the little states down the missippi river. If only the popular vote was in contention you can bet we would have never seen them. One of the most interesting things I have seen was a national map by precincts of how the vote went in the rural areas Bush by a landslide in the metro it was Gore by a landslide. I would be a lot more worried if Florida was the only close state I think if Jeb was not the govenor the winner would have already been declared. I personally think that we will have to wait until the 17th and the deadline has passed for anymore absentee ballots to be counted has passed. It now appears that New Mexico may be moved to the Bush column and it has already now been put in the too close to call column. We also have oregan to tally. My biggest problem is that we seem to be moving to letting the lawyers decide who to give the election. I really think we should reconsider letting them in the door. In regards to who will be president if this has not been decided by January the first would be the speaker of the house who has already stated he will not serve. That leaves the oldest senator in the senate Sen. Thurmond who as president pro temp of the seneate is next in line. The cabinet officials always follow these elected officials and as of the date of the exchange of power would not count as they will be out of a job until the new memebers have been appointed and approved by the senate. Bill will be out of a job he will not be allowed to stay. As to the ballots they were published as required by law and noone complained. In every election we have these problems but this one was close enough to make them count.

I want to say that the race that has really suprised me is the missouri senate race. John Ashcroft IMHO has exibited the best we can expect from our elected officials. After the death of our govenor and his son in the plane crash he stopped his campaign for one week out of respect for the office and because he felt it was the right thing to do. And we did have a bit of irregularity here too. In st. louis the democrats got a judge to keep the polls open after the time they were to close this is in addiation to the law that requires that anyone already in line at a polling station is allowed to vote. When asked near the end of the election Ashcroft stated that he didn't care if the week off did cost him the election as to shut down was the right thing to do.

My biggest concern of turning the vote over to the courts is that every judge in the nation would have a conflict of interest as they all owe their appointments to one of the political parties and should excuse themselves. I personally feel that it is to close to call until all the absentee ballots have been counted then the vote should stand. Those of you with complaints about the ballot I ask have you seen one? The arrows seemed pretty self expanatory to me and as I have already stated these had been published and the time to challenge was then not after the election.

I did decide to vote for GW at the end but look at the closness and the makeup of the congress makes the next four years and really the next two years the time to bring the 3rd parties in to make them serious contenders.

I also have a problem with the demos making such a stink about Ralph Nader taking all those votes away from them. As I recall eight years ago they would never have won if Ross had not taken all those votes away from President Bush. I guess turn about really isn't fair play. I personally like the fact that niether party is going to Washington with a mandate. I also want to point out another reason to keep the electoral college Hillary is now against it so I guess just to be a problem maker I will be for it. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (gef123@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

Hey Nick, I have a friend whose into all sorts of conspiracy style stuff and he tells me that every single president we have ever had has a line that goes back to Charlemane (sp). He told me that Bush has a more pure bloodline than Gore does, so he bet that Bush would win. So much for the blue blood!!!

-- Nolo (nolo@tattoos.com), November 10, 2000.

I find it alternately funny and infuriating to hear the Nader vote termed a 'spoiler' -- because I hear it from BOTH the other parties. Around here it's the Bush people who harangued me about a vote for Nader being the same as a vote for Gore,and having to tell them that 'NO, a vote for Nader is a vote for NADER'. It got to the point where I was tempted to slap one of them silly next time they said that to me, but that would be an oxymoron

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), November 11, 2000.

Gail. I don't think we live in a republic. We should according to the constitution, however the congress in this country does what ever they want and not always the way the people want. Ashcrofts death was sad, and when his son died with him, made it sadder, and I'm sorry. However, I believe a dead man should not be allowed to hold office, nor his wife,children,political party, etc.etc. They weren't on the ballot. I think it's ludicrous to "pass power". Kinda like living in England, where they do this all the time. I believe Missouri's vote was emotional and that they didn't vote with a clear head and that most missourians really liked Ashcroft ,however, we'll just have to wait and see how the cards are played. The democrats and republicans are the same and they both will whine if they thought it will get them somewhere. " The squeaky wheel always get's the grease." Hey Julie, I also changed my mine at the polls and voted for your guy, Nader. Not because I like him, but because I figured out of all the other 3rd party canidates, he'd be the most likely to get 5% of the vote for matching monies. However I don't think he made it. Remember this, When Bush and Gore Fans a like tell you that you could have made a difference with your vote, Tell them your vote was't waisted in fact by NOT VOTING FOR GORE OR BUSH You are responsible for creating one of the most Historical Moments in History,that all the confusion is the resposibility of the 3rd party. And the revolution has begun. The 3rd party has been heard.

-- Richard V. Miller (richard.miller@1st.net), November 11, 2000.

No one's vote was wasted. You're right about the third party thing. We have to be able to express our discontent with the Republicrats by having third parties move up in importance. Personally, I couldn't have voted for Nader for any reason at all, but you should have the right to!

I just read an article at WND that says fourth graders easily voted correctly on the butterfly ballot...here's the addy..

http:// www.worldnetdaily.combluesky_fosterj_news20001111_xnfoj_florida_ba.shtm l

(it's a long one!)

The biggest problem in government is that they are not following the Constitution unless it is popularly expedient for them to do so. They all want to hold onto their positions and aren't terrifically concerned with the oath they swear to uphold the Constitution. Why? Because we the people are not concerned with it either! We are more interested in our pocketbooks and feelings than in the "lex is rex" aspects of our foundational documents. We have become ignorant of what a blessing we were given and let it get legislated into near meaningless blather. When the most important freedom of speech issues are about pornography, it speaks volumes about us.

For all of those folks that want to go with POPULAR vote, why don't you just take the Constitution out in the streets and burn it in effigy? Then when you're done, you won't have the right to do any such disrespectful thing.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), November 11, 2000.

Oh, wait---damn! I filled out my Texas Lottery card wrong! I really did MEAN to fill in the numbers that would have let me win 48 million Wednesday night! You don't mind too much if I just fill out a new card do you?

Yeah, right. Try that and see how far it flies. Same applies to elections. You screw up, you screw up. Get on with it. The vote is valid. When the remaining absentee votes come in and are counted, that should be the end of it all and whoever has the most votes should win. And for the record, I voted for neither of the politicians in question.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), November 11, 2000.

Just for the record, in response to Nick's observation about the pre-meditated stuff: the person who designed the ballot was a democrat. This type of convenient non-information by the media sets up the division. If the fact of the ballot being designed by a democrat was publicised a little more universally, the "conspiracy" theme of this would never have gotten of the ground and there wouldn't be nearly the emotional upheaval forcing this continuation of election...you are being manipulated folks...open your eyes.

-- JimR (jroberts1@cas.org), November 13, 2000.

Just have a second since two deer are waiting to be processed. But what is going on with the repubs? This the old brer rabbit thing. Please Brer Dem don't go to the courts. Let me sneak in and subvert the legal recount instead. I thought repubs respected state law. Florida state law says to hand count. Also it seems many were turned away from the polls. Maybe we should let Russia send voting monitors over. They did offer. If there is corruption it needs to be taken care of or we will just be a joke to the rest of the world. As we are right now. Notice how bad GWB is looking these days? Too much stress I guess.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), November 13, 2000.

So it seems that they should up grade to a voting machine. No fuss no confusion. Just move the lever for who you want and the pull the handle to submit your vote. And would make it very hard to have have cheaters get in extra votes.

-- Anthony J. DiDonato (didonato@vvm.com), November 13, 2000.

count #3 or #4 going on now. So far Bush has gained 100+ votes. How many counts does it take? Wait a minute... that started to sound like a joke intro line. How many times do you count the votes till a democrat can change the outcome? As many as it takes!

State law says to recount. Good enough, been done, Bush won. Hand count going on now (Have not heard that a hand count was the law). When Bush wins this count, what will be the reason dems do not to accept that? Law not working in their favor?

Interesting side note. The Democratic party hired a tele marketing firm from Texas (irony noted here) to call registered Dem voters in palm beach and west palm beach to tell them about the ballot and that they should complain about it. So now we know how the ballot issue got started.

Yes, I believe russia probably did offer. the russians have a vested interest in getting their pal elected. Who else is going to enter into agreements w/ them that bypasses the congress and law so easily.

If you listen to foriegn radio, BBC or radio Belgium for example. You would know that we're already a joke. Think they called 'em Monica's Missiles.

Let me see... Law says the one w/ the most votes wins. Ok, this may not be true now....but we'll make it sound like Bush lost and is trying to steal the election. This really should be simple. Add 'em up.

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), November 13, 2000.

DEL-I disagree that the Democrats have proven they would do ANYTHING to win. After all George is still alive isn't he.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), November 13, 2000.

Does it bother anyone else that "they" are trying to determine the INTENT of the voter? It scares me! I don't want anyone not even the person I vote for to determine my intent by looking at how a hole is punched in a piece of paper. It's hard enough sometimes to convey your intent in written email. How can someone possibly know my intent by a hole punch? That is not freedom or democratic.

-- Kathy (DavidWH6@juno.com), November 15, 2000.

They = both Republicans and Democrats sitting at a table with supervisors of both politcal parties keeping eye on everything, and half the world watching *them*. Is that what you mean, TPTB? or just the Democrats? Just curious?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), November 15, 2000.

Here are a couple of suggestions: A) We could have a new election whereby the candidates are the media anchors who created this mess in the first place, and the winner would be the candidate who made the most sense after the longest session of sleep deprivation;

B) The candidate who can ride a horse, milk a cow,split firewood (no log-splittin' machine!),butcher a chicken,plant a garden (successfully!) would be the man to lead the people;

C) The BEST solution: Since they (and particularly Gore's camp!) are insistent on behaving like spoilt children, let a panel of MOMS decide who gets the Pesidency & who goes to his room!

Really, though,considering where this nation has been headed in general since the 60's, this is not a surprising turn of events. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't happened BEFORE now! Miss getting your magazine, but it's nice to see your website, a voice of sanity in a world gone stupid! I'll sure re-subscribe after we get moved to our new place.C-ya! :-)

-- L. Smith (seahorse@horsemail.com), November 16, 2000.