Re: So, What IS a Fascist, anyway?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mark Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> Ah, but Florida's electors were not chosen in the manner
>> prescribed by Florida law (i.e., NOT per the Constitution), as
>> ensured by the SCOTUS 5 Judge decision, so that page does not
>> apply in the argument at hand.  ["Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
> Please explain how they were not chosen in the manner prescribed by
> Florida law .

A technical argument, which ignores any questions regarding the
wisdom or impartiality of the U.S. Supreme Court's actions, goes like
this:

If at the state level -- as at the federal -- it is the province of
the judicial branch to decide, where the law is silent or there are
conflicting interpretations of it, what the law is, then Florida law
regarding the counting of presidential votes (and therefore the
choosing of the state's electors) is what the Florida Supreme Court
said it was.

If the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling compelling Florida to
handle its counting of the presidential votes in a manner
inconsistent with the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, then Florida
law was not followed.

(The counter-argument, of course, is to reference the Supremacy
Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
   be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which
   shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
   the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
   be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
   State to the contrary notwithstanding.

...which means that the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the
law trumps that of any state judges.  However, one _can_ say that,
technically, while federal law was followed Florida law was not.)

-- William December Starr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>