posted on November 30, 2000 04:56:00 PM
Yeah! That's her, Zazzie, Greta von Sustern(sp?).I hate it when it's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't think of it. Thanks!
posted on November 30, 2000 05:02:50 PM
Prime Minister Jean Chretin of Canada has the same thing--talks out of the side of his mouth----looks like one of those Lollypop twin Munchkins in the movie "The Wizard of Oz'
IF (big if) Florida has already sent in it's list of elector appointees, then I think it would be unprecedented and difficult to select and certify a new set. But if they've only been selected but not sent up to the college then it would seem to me that they are not selected.
You're right, it's old law. 1787, wasn't it?
Speaking of caravans, did the ballots get hijacked?
posted on November 30, 2000 05:06:18 PM
Zazzie, how is his name pronounced? It looks to me like it would be pronounced like "cretin", but surely it isn't!
posted on November 30, 2000 05:11:07 PM
Nah, their arrival, and the Ryder truck they rode in on, was "breaking news" on Cnn.
krs, yes, it looks like Jeb signed the certification and it was faxed to the National Archives in DC. So...if the courts upheld Gore, and manual recounts were undertaken, of which he is the winner, yes, the courts would order the state to certify a new slate of electors. So...TWO certified slates. Tricky indeed. But not unprecedented as I understand it, two set were sent in 1876 (or thereabouts)in the Rutherford Hayes deal. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
posted on November 30, 2000 05:11:15 PM
no Katy---it's not. It's a French name--so you need to put some French pronunciation in there--and it's not JEAN as some Scottish Lassie---but Jean as in Captain Jean Luc Picard
posted on November 30, 2000 05:18:08 PM
Dec. 12 is the date by which IF slates of electors are sent to Washington, Congress MUST consider them "conclusive." It doesn't say the slates MUST be received by then, just that any that arrive there by then are "conclusive." As one legal scholar (Bruce Ackerman of Yale) explained that, it was a *promise* Congress made to the states when they were doing some changes to the law, cleaning things up after previous problems.
Dec. 18 is the date the electors meet and vote for President. But these results aren't received by the House until January 6 (which may be changed to the 5th next year because the 6th is on a Saturday).
Florida's Secty of State has already sent a slate to Washington, duly signed by Jeb Bush. They did this in a BIG hurry, and without any fanfare. SOmething I heard while I was watching some of these professors talk to the legislature made me think that they may end up regretting that haste, but I can't remember the little legal wrinkle that made me think that.
Since there already is a slate of electors in Washington for the state of Florida, IMO at least, a special session by the FL legislature is unnecessary. They've already got a Secty of State and a Governor who would be disinclined to put forth a second slate. Unless, of course, the legislature is interested in protecting their top two officials by spreading out the responsibility. That's the only thing I can think of.
If the courts decide whatever they decide so as to change the outcome of the election, it's not at all clear that the U.S. House would accpet a 2nd slate. I haven't heard that it's possible to withdraw the first slate they sent forward, or that there's any mechanism for that. And in the case of TWO slates, the House of Representatives apparently gets to choose. We already know who controls the House AND that Tom DeLay has already had staffers researching how to use these old laws to make sure Bush wins if all else fails.
posted on November 30, 2000 05:23:29 PM
From what I've seen nothing about the Rutherford Ford election would surprise me. That was a massive manipulation exercized by southern states in order to have an agreement that the reconstruction measures by the north imposed on the south be stopped.
Seems most likely that a new selection would negate the previous certification, but I don't know that.
posted on November 30, 2000 05:44:26 PMSeems most likely that a new selection would negate the previous certification, but I don't know that.
Not only has not one of the various experts I've heard over the last 2 or more days suggested that, but rather the opposite -- that Congress can, in effect, choose between them.
Then there's that clause about those received before the 12th being "conclusive."
One thing for sure, we're probably about to find out.
posted on November 30, 2000 07:42:23 PM
Here's a fairly good article on the ins and outs of the electoral deadlines. It's at the NYT and does require registration.
posted on November 30, 2000 08:20:57 PM
The real live Electors are not sent to WASHINGTON on December 12th----they are sent to their respective State Capitals
posted on November 30, 2000 11:25:53 PM
In listening to the news all day..I have not heard that Jeb already signed and faxed the elector stuff you mentioned.
posted on November 30, 2000 11:48:47 PM
I suppose if each state can run their elections according to state law---they can do the Elector thingy per state law too.
You'll have to ask someone wiser than me if the site is real or not--but it doesn't look bogus
posted on December 1, 2000 12:04:33 AM
Bogus site? Well, let's see - Here's just one of the responsibilities that the National Archives and Records Administration has. nara for short.
§ 106a. Promulgation of laws
Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved by the President, or not having been returned by him with his selections, becomes a law or takes effect, it shall forthwith be received by the Archivist of the United States from the President;...
Seems as if the head of this agency, which provided the information being discussed through the Federal Register, (another governmental entity), works in conjunction with the Executive Office and Congress.
Naw, can't say this is a "bogus site". Of course, that could change with Dubya in the White House.
posted on December 1, 2000 02:47:35 AM
Web addresses that end in .gov are reserved exclusively for the Federal government. So, you see, "http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/2000certa.html#begin would have to be a legitimate site, and even a legitimate sight, for that matter. Maybe when this is all over, Rushbo can explain to us, on his website, how web address suffixes work.
Yes, it's true that Jeb Bush signed the certificate of ascertainment and sent it to Washington a few days ago. I'd heard it in passing on some tv channel, and tracked down a confirming report on Yahoo news here -
Well, KatyD, this Florida legislature stuff isn't a surprise, Jim Baker pretty much ordered them to do just what they're talking about doing in his press conference after the Florida Supreme Court decision that went against Bush. I don't believe the Florida legislators when they say they've had no contact with the Bush team, just like I didn't believe that Bickle(sp?) guy when he said he was an independent Democrat who, on his own initiative, was just going to familiarize himself with the states' electors names, denying that he's a Democratic operative with the assigned mission of turning Bush electors, and I don't believe that the military ballot memorandum wasn't done by or with the express consent of the DNC, and I also don't believe that the DNC isn't behind or supporting the Seminole County lawsuit, as well as the butterfly ballot lawsuit.
Funny you should have brought up Greta Van Susteren (sp?), I sent an email to her Q&A column on CNN's website the other morning about the Florida Legislature's powers. I think she's got a lot of sense, but that mouth thing sure gets on my nerves. I don't reckon I'll get an answer, I heard her say on CNN last night that she's gotten 2,000 emails to her column.
I don't think anyone really knows what the procedure would be if 2 slates of competing electors was sent in and it went to Congress. I even heard one scenario where, if that happened, it would get kicked back from Congress to the governor of the undecided state, for him to decide. I can't remember who was musing that that would be the resolution.
There's been so much speculation about it that I'm just dying to know what the answer is. We'll never know what the answer would have been if it doesn't happen, so I'm kind of hoping it will happen just to satisfy my curiosity.
But it doesn't look to me like a Democratic slate of electors is going to be a Florida possibility. David Boies is about tearing what hair he's got left out trying to hurry up that slow-talking country judge he's working with now. Boies sent some kind of emergency appeal for mandamus to the Florida Supreme court, asking them to either tell the judge to hurry the heck up, or take the case over themselves, and the Florida Supreme Court might feel that Boies has gotten them into enough trouble already, they seem to be ignorning him. Meanwhile, Jim Baker has hired more lawyers, including partners in his own lawfirm, right after he said it was time for the lawyers to pack up and go home, and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of making sure Boies isn't going to get anything done anytime soon. And everytime Lieberman gets in front of the cameras and does a press confernce, he sounds like he's gonna cry. I think it'll all end with a whimper, not a bang.
posted on December 1, 2000 04:00:20 AM
Dangerous Precedent?? I thought that was what we had when the Demoncrates started this mess through the courts (which were in no way partisian?)?
As for the voters being eliminated if the Legislature appoints the electors, BULL. The Legislature was voted in by Florida voters therefore they represent them. It appears by the makeup of the Legislature that the voters must want a Republican.
As to the unpunched ballots, I wonder how many Demoncrates voted the ticket but just could not bring themselves to vote for Gore, so left it unpunched?
