Florida Legislature defies 3 U.S.C. 5

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

TOday the Florida House of representatives, in their misguided attempt to meet what they feel is the proper deadline for safe harbor, have actually created the exact situation they had hoped to avoid.

They have appointed electors pursuant to a rule created after the election. Nowhere in the Florida election law does it state that the Legislature can make any other decision other than the "will of the people" as stated in their own statutes. It does not say that if there is an unresolved contest, then they can do what they want. As much as some may not like it, the contest is NOT resolved; the supreme court has not yet ruled.

They may think they are entitled to do this because of the plenary power given to state legislatures in article II of the U.S. Consitution, but they cannot operate independently of the very constitution which created them. The founding fathers could not have conceived of a legislature which has absolute power within a state-or conceived of a legislature which was completely beyond judicial review.

What we have here, in essence, and what we will have if the Supremes rule in Bush's favor, is a total affront to states rights. The FLorida constitution directs the activities of the legislature; if we are to say that the legislature is ABOVE the state consitution, then we have absolute power at its best-a renegade arm of government unchecked by the judiciary. The us goverment, the us congress. the Supremes, do not have a right to tell states how to appoint electors-and just because the power to appoint vests in state legislatures does not mean they do not have to act according to their own consitution.

Won't these people seem like fools if it turns out Gore was right and he won the state. A Supreme court ruling in favor of Bush will set back states rights 50 years.

Too bad no one on the right can see this, blinded as they are by their passion for their candidate.

This is truly a sad day when a legislature decides they are above redress.

This definately opens the door to a challenge in the house and senate.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000

Answers

A Supreme court ruling in favor of Bush will set back states rights 50 years.

And a ruling for alWhore will destroy individual freedom and rights in America, perhaps for good.

alWhore, the neo-fascist lying bastard traitor. He should be hung from the Liberty Tree.

-- no one here (-@-.-), December 12, 2000.


At this point I do not give a flying fuck if Al Gore wins. What I DO give a flying fuck about is a state legislature ignoring its own consitution.

And in your hatred of Al GOre, you seem to miss the point. The judiciary is there to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-or did you fail political science? With a state legislature gone renegade, who WILL protect you from unconstitutional legislation?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.


Well Syd, the Florida Legislature is doing a good job of protecting my INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and about half of all Americans would agree. I doubt if you know enough about constitutional law to offer any real factual input so why not just shut the fuck up.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

Syd:

I lack Barry's eloquence, but I notice not even the most liberal pundits share your viewpoint. It would appear that you are the only one who is NOT blind. A remarkable stance for someone as impartial as you claim to be, don't you think?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 2000.


read the Amicus brief by the Brennan Center for Justice located at www.findlaw.com.

I am not the only one who feels this way.

And Barry:

What the hell got up your ass? Was I talking to you. Where you the first anon here? If I could fuck myself, I would. It might feel quite good.

-- SydBarret (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.



Jesse Jackson wasn’t talking to ME either but what’s the difference? You post crap like you do and the range is open. BTW, I suggested that you ‘shut the fuck up’, not ‘fuck yourself’. But please, don’t let that stop you from giving it a shot!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

Barry:

Thank you for your opinion. I will weigh it strongly before posting any more stuff.

If it were not for people like you, I would not know the boundries of what is good and right. You set me straight, and for that I am eternally grateful. For days, perchance, for years I have held certain beliefs to be true-the most important being to think for myself-but you have shown me that this is something I should forsake.

Thank God for arbiters of justice such as yourself, who show us it is more important to attack a person, with broad generalities, then to actually address their specific ideas. That it is much more important to say "everything he writes is bullshit", then to actually read the same documents, and disagree on the merits in the course of debate.

You have taught me today that research is not important, that getting all the facts is not important, and that what other people think about me is more important than anything else. You are a beacon of light in the darkness of my life.

I want to belt out choruses of amazing grace, cause through your wisdom I have been found.

Thank you, kind soul, for teaching me these lessons today.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.


Enough Syd, send money.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 12, 2000.

I think I just figured out who Syd is.

-- me (yes@you know.me), December 12, 2000.

Was I someone before I was me? Or was I always? Am I who I am, or am I a figment of someone else's imagination? Was I here before here was there? Who can I be if I am not who I am? Is who I am who I am about to be-or is who I am something I was before, but for misinterpretation? Have I ceased to exist, or will I cease to exist when I become who I was? Or was who I was somehow more relevant than who I have become or will become? Is what I have become something that has never before existed? Has anything ever existed before I became? Or is who I will eventually be more important than who you think I might be, but for the passage of time? Does the passage of time mean anything when all may think I am he who was someone else? She who was known to all, but now is an esoteric signature in this short blip of time?

Is it all that important to find out who I once was to understand who I am or who I may become? Or will that very definition shatter what is to come?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 12, 2000.



Syd=Brian

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 13, 2000.

To be or not to be? That is the question. Wether it is nobler to be who you want me to be, or perhaps wiser to retain one's identity through the vagaries of our chaotic world-this is the question that must be answered among the onslaught of inquiries from the masses.

One may not know, but perchance they will know, at some appointed hour, written in the clouds to be observed on particular dimly lit days, when Orion hides, full of fury, waiting to raise his head above the horizon. When the moon meets the sun, and darkness covers the day, then and only then may the identity be revealed. But it is not necessarily the case; This would be one of many opportunities to remove the cloak-devour the secrecy which plagues those who MUST know- who believe that a clear target is more affable than a mystery wrapped within an enigma.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 13, 2000.


Whew! Must be some righteous shit you got there Syd. Care to share?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), December 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ