Re: So, What IS a Fascist, anyway?

-- 
"In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the
sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law & order."

- Idi Dada Amin

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of
Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in
midstream. .and would have incurred incalculable human and political
costs. .We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule
Iraq. .There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see. .Going in and
occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate,
would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression
that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United
States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile
land. It would have been a dramatically  different -- and perhaps barren -- 
outcome."

- Elected President Bush

"William December Starr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.)

Article II, Section 1, para 2

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors..."

So, as long as there is no problem with selecting the Electors, the
SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.  There wasn't, so when the SCOTUS
stepped in, the electors were not chosen "...in such Manner as the
Legislature
thereof may direct..."  Thus my statement.  The SCOTUS broke with
precedent in this manner, yet never really justified this break, and
in fact asserted that their action was not to be used as a precedent,
showing that they fully understood the shadiness of their actions
(speaking only of the majority concurring Justices, of course, the
dissenters clearly pointing out the discrepancy in their opinions).

Dan