CDR: RE: A very brief politcal rant

[Ernest Hua]

As I said earlier, a court may very well find some Constitutional
issue or something else very serious about the appointment.  But
I would think that, in that event, there will be some other way
found to work around the necessity for an appointment.  Special
bill passed in the state legislature?  Who knows.

My original point still stands.  The voters should get what they
want, unless they want something clearly illegal.  That's a clear
principle in our pseudo-democracy.  Every principle has a point
where it must be compromised to appropriately coexist with other
principles.  But it is clear that if the voters have spoken,
there has to be a strong counter argument before their wishes can
be voided in effect (not just in procedure).

I am quite certain this principle will have a strong impact on
the outcome, should should the issue go to trial.

Ern

-----Original Message-----
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan at well.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 8:18 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant

Well, if it is an unconstitutional election-appointment combination,
then technicalities *do* count, if only to keep some respect for that
tattered document alive.

I don't care much about that election, and it is big of Ashcroft to
step aside, but the law turns on what you dismiss as mere
"technicalities."

-Declan

On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:06:09PM -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:
> Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address
> the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters
> should get.  There is no question what the voter wants.  They
> knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife.
> The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw
> this out would require finding a serious problem.  Technicality is
> probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate.
> 
> Ern
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: Jim Burnes [mailto:jburnes at savvis.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > In <973697805.3a09730d4e448 at webmail.cotse.com>, on 11/08/00
> >
> >    at 09:36 AM, brflgnk at cotse.com said:
> > >If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as
Senator,
> > >I think  that's exactly what they should get.  Leave the seat empty for
> > >two years.
> >
> > Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
> > ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally
citizens
> > and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
> 
> Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.
> 
> If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office.  The
> governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if 
> the current office holder dies.
> 
> Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled.
The
> 
> governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office
> must 
> be held before it can be filled.  The correct solution would be to hold a 
> special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are
voting
> into office.  What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be
> less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds
> (after debates etc).
> 
> Here is a question?  Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on
the
> ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?
> 
> jim
> 
> -- 
> Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
> himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have
we
> found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
> question.	-- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001110/0a477ac1/attachment.txt>