------------------
Re: Russia in WWII

"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.

All this means is that you have to go and look up the relevant law on election recounts and post it in this thread (like you posted it in another one, which anybody could get off their spotty behind for a moment and check...).

This will conclusively demonstrate what the law IS regarding election recounts in Florida.

Now, a court's job, as anyone with two active brain cells to rub together knows, is to INTERPRET the law. This refers only to the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.

There is NO law or reasonable ruling which grants a court or a judge the leeway to CREATE new law, overriding the intent and the text of the original law.

Creation of laws is SOLELY the responsibility of the Legislative branch of government. You can look this up in any grade-school civics textbook under "separation of powers."

Courts can rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of lower legislative branches' laws, but they cannot create their own.

This can be likened to a referee in a sporting event. The referees interpret the rules of the game. They judge whether one side or another committed an error/foul/touchdown, or not, but they CAN'T create new rules during the playing of a game. Neither can the players. (Actually, I forget who does, I assume it's the sports' legislative body) but the point is, it's not the referees.)

example: the 'lateral' pass in american football. At one time this was illegal, now it's not. But the refs didn't change it.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Ritten:

"Is it against the law to shift the burden of proof??"

In a criminal case, yes (and that's even if the court tells you to). In a debate, it's simply bad form.

In any circumstances, the burden of proof rests with you guys. All government entities are limited in what they can legally do, by nature. They can only do what the laws say they can do. This applies to the supreme court of Florida. Therefore, for this ruling to be legal, there must be a law indicating that the court has the authority to change the rules. I state that there is none, thus I challenge the validity of your position.

Ball's in your court. You're the one that has to find a specific law.

First:

You've got a good point. I guess my mistake was assuming that my opponent DID, in fact, have those two brain cells to rub together. Thus I didn't spell things out for them as you did above. My mistake.

Anyway...

Florida Code, Title IX, Chapter 102.112, Section (1):

"The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."

"SHALL file." Pretty clear, don't you think? This is not open to interpretation, unless you care to try and redefine the words. The DNC has been pretty bad about that, of late.

Under any circumstances, the court can only override this law if there's a higher law in effect. Since this is a state election, the only higher law that would be in effect would be in the state constitution.

And even THEN:

Florida Constitution, Article II, Section III:

"The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein."

This means that even if you CAN find a good reason for the court to have thrown out existing law, they CAN NOT make new law. By definition, the legislative branch does that, and the judicial branch doing so would be exercising a power appertaining to another branch, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, you care to dig up a proviso that may or may not be somewhere in their constitution, as allowed by, "unless expressly provided herein." Feel freee to look.

-The Courts can toss out a law if it finds that if it breaks another law (unless it is stated that it supersedes the prior law).
-The courts can not legally make new law. That is the responsibility of the politicians.
-The courts have a responsibility to apply the law to whatever situation might arise. Granted, in unusual circumstances, they could "expand the old law" to fit the new situation (Law and Order reference, based on New York Law).

As for Gore saying that he will not recognize a Bush victory in Florida after the Dade ruling: GIVE IT UP, GORE!!!! Unless you are here to start American Civil War II you'd better stop. You now have everything to lose, including your credibility, and your reputation.

And even if you do win, you will never get the support from me, and probably hundreds of thousands of other Democrats who feel that you unfairly stole this election from Bush.

I hereby endorse George W. Bush as the next President. And this is even though I may be a Democrat Supporter.

------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."

quote:

---

As for Gore saying that he will not recognize a Bush victory in Florida after the Dade ruling: GIVE IT UP, GORE!!!! Unless you are here to start American Civil War II you'd better stop. You now have everything to lose, including your credibility, and your reputation.

---

I agree.

Moving on.

quote:

---

Jay, you held a position. I challenged you to prove it. Don't try and turn it on me, it ain't gonna work.

---

To put it in words that have no uncertain meaning, you Omega are an evasive idiot. Your intellectual sophistry is really starting to wear thin. (You might need to look that one up).

Who was the person to call the ruling of the court illegal? Omega.

Ok, fine say I. Proof or parrot. I think he's parroting things he's heard on the condervative talk radio (just a guess mind you).

Did you or did you not read the opinion of the Court before speaking? I do not think you did...again, just a guess. If you would like to, I found a link for you so you don't even have to research that.

Florida Law Weekly

quote:

---

VI. STATUTORY AMBIGUITY

The provisions of the Code are ambiguous in two significant areas. First, the time frame for conducting a manual recount under section 102.166(4) is in conflict with the time frame for submitting county returns under sections 102.111 and 102.112.
Second, the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112.

---

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

----------

Chapter 102.166 (4):

(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.

(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

----------

Chapter 102.111:

(1) Immediately after certification of any election by the county canvassing board, the results shall be forwarded to the Department of State concerning the election of any federal or state officer. The Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Division of Elections shall be the Elections Canvassing Commission. The Elections Canvassing Commission shall, as soon as the official results are compiled from all counties, certify the returns of the election and determine and declare who has been elected for each office. In the event that any member of the Elections Canvassing Commission is unavailable to certify the returns of any election, such member shall be replaced by a substitute member of the Cabinet as determined by the Director of the Division of Elections. If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.

(2) The Division of Elections shall provide the staff services required by the Elections Canvassing Commission.

----------

Chapter 102.112:

(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.

(2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member's personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the 1Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund, created by s. 106.32. [Now defunct.]

(3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.

----------

I believe this is all the relevant legislation, no?

Now lets go through the court's points individually.

"the time frame for conducting a manual recount under section 102.166(4) is in conflict with the time frame for submitting county returns under sections 102.111 and 102.112."

Well, let's look at that. The time frame for submitting county returns in .111 and .112 is 5 pm (presumably EST, considering the time of the year) on the seventh day after the election. The time frame for conducting a manual recount as stated in .166 is... hmm. There isn't one. There's simply a time frame for submitting a request. Thus there is no conflict. Shall we declare this point moot, then?

"the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112."

Well, they ARE correct in stating that the language is DIFFERENT in the statutes. "All missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified," as opposed to, "such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified."

However, this does not make any legal difference, as it is not, in fact, a direct conflict. How does it make any difference in meaning when one says that the board MAY do something, and the other says they MUST? It may be poor use of the english language, but it's not a direct contradiction. It's even possible to eliminate the idea that it's poor use of the language, if you care to make the effort to reconsile them. It can be reasonably read as meaning, "The board must do this, and it is, in fact, legal." A little redundant, but it would make sense.

And keep in mind that, even if the court's decision to toss out the election law were justified, they still don't have the right to write new law in its place.

Now tell me I wrote all that down REAL fast as Rush said it.

True in the U.S. Especialy in terms of Constitutionality of laws.

"-The courts can not legally make new law. That is the responsibility of the politicians."

Very True in the U.S.

"-The courts have a responsibility to apply the law to whatever situation might arise. Granted, in unusual circumstances, they could "expand the old law" to fit the new situation (Law and Order reference, based on New York Law)."

Half-true in the U.S. In the event that no ruling exists for a certain contingency, in some few cases the court might use its discretion to 'expand' the law. However, such rulings are always extremely controversial, and are frequently overturned on appeal.

(as for Law and Order... it IS a TV ahow, after all. Does that New York law really exist? I'd be highly skeptical.)

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

Nope, nevermind. Thought I saw a loophole, but I think I was wrong.

Props.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

quote:

---

However, this does not make any legal difference, as it is not, in fact, a direct conflict. How does it make any difference in meaning when one says that the board MAY do something, and the other says they MUST?

---

Yes, it does make a legal difference. In legal terms, language is everything. A "may" leaves a door open to challege and legal interpretation.

quote:

---

Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.

---

Herein lies a problem. The language reads "must be filed" and "may be ignored"...now if that said "will be ignored" there is no issue.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux

The imperative "must" overrides the permissive "may" in the english language.

If you want a clearer example, try this.

Your mom says "You must clean your room by 6:00."
and then
Your dad says "You may clean your room today."

If your mom is anything like mine, you'd better have that room clean by 6:00.

Unless "may" refers to allowable potentiality, (it may happen this way) in which case it is still overridden by the imperative (it MUST happen this way)

*Disengages English B.A.*

I should tell you that my local English M.A. just agreed with that linguistic assessment. I haven't spoken to a lawyer yet, though.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master

The count must end at such and such a time. Ballots after that may or may not be accpeted.

Ambiguity.

------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns

Stating that something is possible or permissable does not automatically convey that there are other options.

The law is quite clear.

No ambiguity.