Keith, What the Florida Supreme Court did was unconstitutional. It's as simple as that. A judiciary is not allowed to make law. It interprets laws made by legislatures, but that's all. The US Supremes in a sense compounded the error by giving the Floridians a slap on the wrist, suggesting they should rethink their decision to extend the period before the election is declared. The Florida Supremes carried out their compounding by extending the period still further.
Counties had the seven day period from the count to do a recount and one county did this according to law and the recount was accepted - as it should be. There is a law saying a recount can be made if the candidate counts are close to each other. The Democrats were slow picking up on this, which is their fault. If the regular count can be finished overnight, surely a recount can be completed in the next 6 days? Of course, then came the chads and discussions of what the voter really meant. It was a mess - but it was a mess for both Republicans and Democrats. They have changed the system with modern technology in Florida. However, that seems in a mess too. You said about "File on Four": "It came to the conclusion that the evidence of sleaze and corruption against Cheney, Thomas White (Secretary to the Army) and Larry Thompson (Chairman of Bush's ethic committee) was so serious at the beginning of this year, that Bush had to deflect public attention by his policy against Iraq. " Cheney, White, and Thompson are innocent, as you know. The bit about Bush is part of the interminable discussion of the unknown - what Bush is thinking. Never has a President been so psychoanalyzed as Bush. Including by me - though I'm looking more to his actions than to his sojourn on a virtual couch. I have speculated on how his actions and results seem to confirm his reputation as someone who gets his way by negotiation. As one looks back, doesn't it strike you as interesting how many of his efforts have been successful? I'm not saying that I approve of the things he has done, simply that he gets them done. Not always the way he wanted - but with acceptable modifications. Maybe he's lucky. Who was it who said he wanted, above all, a General who was lucky? With regard to your not voting conservative, you must remember that this means that over here you wouldn't vote for some Democrats as well as some Republicans, for there are both conservatives and liberals in both parties. Most of them are pretty centrist. You'll recall the anger of many Republicans because the US got Republican policies from Clinton. (Come to think about it, maybe the British Conservatives get conservative policies from Tony.) I suspect that many Brits believe American Conservatives are like that pallid, lifeless, group in Parliament, but that isn't true. Neither is it true that the Democrats are like New Labor. It's a different breed of politics over here. With regard to Bush's crazy talk, the American people seem to accept it. I haven't been listening to his speeches. They got too boring. I did this week listen to an almost "major speech" - almost, because none of the networks carried it. It too said very little, but it is perhaps what the American people want, because in spite of the worry about the economy, support for the President remains very high. Whatever happens - and I cleave to the hope that the whole shebang is pointed toward full and open inspection, and that if the inspection is successful and Saddam is clean, that trade opens wide between Iraq and the world - particularly with the US. (I suppose you know we are using Iraq oil at the moment.) The best way for Iraq to be monitored is by a legion of foreigners trading and vacationing in the country. However, the more important question is when is preemption justified? This is the issue that is front and center. If North Korea makes a nuclear weapon and then threatens South Korea - would it be justified to drop a bomb on the appropriate part of North Korea? If Mugabe has a chemical laboratory that is making anthrax, would we be justified in sending in a Delta Force to destroy the lab. The UN has been entering the situation after it's well under way. Should they preempt where not to preempt would be criminal? Or, is preemption never an option? Should the French have stood against Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? Had they done so (they were apparently much stronger than Hitler at the time) would that have brought the Hitlerian wagon train to a screeching halt? (Will anything bring my mixture of metaphors to a halt?) Anyway, you see what I'm driving at. Is preemption a necessary policy at times? If your answer is yes - would this cover an American preemption? If no, why not? Harry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith wrote: >Harry, > >Whatever you may say about the legality of Bush's election (as a foreigner, >I have absolutely no view on this), there can be little doubt that Bush and >some of his close associates escape prosecution in the coming months and >years they will certainly go down in history as one of the most suspicious >that there ever has been. > >My economic views support free trade -- in the liberal tradition of 19th >century England. Yet I have never voted Conservative (present-day upholders >of free trade) in my life because I have never trusted them. If I were >American I don't know whether I would have ever have refused to vote >Republican for the same reason. But if I had ever voted for them, then I >would certainly feel deeply ashamed right now. > >I've just been listening to "File on Four", a BBC radio programme which >investigates corrupt business practice extremely carefully. It never make >charges lightly. It came to the conclusion that the evidence of sleaze and >corruption against Cheney, Thomas White (Secretary to the Army) and Larry >Thompson (Chairman of Bush's ethic committee) was so serious at the >beginning of this year, that Bush had to deflect public attention by his >policy against Iraq. He will keep up his crazy war-talk until at least the >November elections are over. > >Keith > > >At 11:24 12/10/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Brad, > > > >Bush is prepared to give in order to get and he has been quite successful. > > > >You'll note that Saddam has given permission for full inspection by the UN. > >If he retreats from this agreement, he is likely to suffer from war. Maybe > >full inspection will be a reality and the fears of Saddam's prospective > >victims will be allayed. > > > >Why were the inspectors pulled out last time? Because he knew he could get > >away with it. He thumbed his nose at the UN and they didn't have the > >gumption to protest. > > > >He knows that Bush has the gumption to act. We'll see if that will cut him > >down to size. > > > >If it works, we might be able to force the other recalcitrants along the > >road to peace and cooperation. Maybe North Korea and others will become > >more lovable if they know there is a determined American President. > > > >But, if there is a hint of weakness any such pressure will disappear like a > >pricked balloon. > > > >Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war. The reason for the Russian > >climb-down was because they thought that Kennedy would do what he promised. > > > >Can you imagine what might have happened had Nobel winner Jimmy Carter been > >in the chair at that time. I rather think we would have had our nuclear war > >- not then, but in due course. Jimmy is as nice a person as one might meet, > >but he was a horrible President. > > > >Democrat propaganda during the election was entirely ad hominem. Bush was > >depicted as a rock ribbed, right wing conservative, who was unintelligent, > >un-learned, a pawn of his father, a puppet for the oil interests, and a > >local boy. He obviously didn't have chance. > > > >Opposing him was an 8 year vice-President, a Washington patrician, a > >politician who had travelled the world. > > > >It was an uneven contest. > > > >In fact it was no contest. Yet, when they faced each other in debate, Bush > >won. While the European papers chortled over every mis-speak - those who > >were watching the two, chose Bush. > > > >The Florida vote was over 7 days after the election according to law. Bush > >had won. Everything that happened thereafter was illegal. The Court has no > >right to make laws. Yet, they did when they refused to accept Kathleen > >Harris' closure of the polling. > > > >The law was clear, but the Florida Supreme Court were all political > >democrats and I rather think they had their orders. > > > >Poor Kathleen Harris who as Secretary of State has a job that is mostly > >sinecure. Her only real official duty was the ceremonial certification of > >the vote, 7 days after the election. This, she dutifully did according to >law. > > > >She became the target for democrat frustration with the loss. As Reuters > >later reported: "Harris also received death threats, and she became the > >butt of countless jokes on late-night television shows. Critics panned not > >just her decisions but her dress sense and enthusiastic hand with make-up." > > > >Yet, she had only one ceremonial decision - to declare the election over at > >the appropriate time on the appropriate day. If Republicans had used Uzis > >to keep democrats from the poll, that was not her concern. She just had to > >say 'the seven days are up and the results are recorded'. > > > >However, she will be soon be a congresswoman so perhaps then all will be > >forgiven. > > > >The result of all this was the democrat scream that Bush had stolen the > >election. That Gore had really won. > > > >It was nonsense, but perhaps it salves the disappointment and anger of > >Democrats in cushy jobs who had to give them up to Republicans. > > > >Thus for you Europeans, Keith, the fantasy has become fact. Bush is a dumbo > >who stole the election from Gore. I would remind you that since the steel > >tariff (ugh!) the administration has been busy making special import > >concessions (106 last time I noticed it). In return, Bush has managed to > >get 'fast track' authority to proceed with trade negotiations - something > >that Clinton lost. > > > >Incidentally, Bush managed it with the help of the textile industry support > >- amazing considering the effect of imports on the industry. > > > >So, this dumbo hick seems not to be doing too badly. His reputed > >negotiating skills seem to the fore. We'll see how he does if the Democrats > >get both houses in next month's election. The Democrats sole interest at > >that point will be kicking Bush out at the next election. > > > >It's politics, you know - which activity takes precedence over everything > >in this over-politicized nation. > > > >Read again what you wrote, Brad. > > > >Politics seems to be getting in the way of your thinking, which is a shame > >for you think so well. > > > >Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.394 / Virus Database: 224 - Release Date: 10/3/2002
