[ExI] White House does not rule out the possibility of delaying the election

[William Flynn Wallace]

 Remind us please why gun shops should be closed as non-essential
businesses?



spike


"*Hey!  You gotta open up.  It is essential that I have a gun.  I have a
bank to rob."  When more people are at home I 'd say that the need for guns
is less than usual.   bill w*

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:58 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On *
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] White House does not rule out the possibility of
> delaying the election
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:08 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *> **Trump’s son in law isn’t in charge of that, state governments are.  *
>
> * Aren’t you glad we have a constitution? *
>
>
>
> >…That election date is set by the US Constitution not by state
> constitutions. And Spike, I know you're not concerned because you believe
> violating the US Constitution is as impossible as violating the Second Law
> Of Thermodynamics, but those of us that still remain on planet earth think
> that maybe just maybe that might not be entirely true.
>
>
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> John, you may recall the Supreme Court case of 2000.  The Florida ballot
> was disputed, and Florida was the tipping point state.
>
>
>
> The one feller whose name I cannot recall beat the other feller whose name
> I cannot recall by a razor thin margin, there were irregularities in the
> way the votes were counted by the county officials (the dented chads and
> hanging chads debtes) and so on, so the case ended up in the SCOTUS.
>
>
>
> The SCOTUS didn’t argue over who won the election that state, but rather
> whether that state’s delegates would be allowed to come to the EC.  If they
> were excluded, the one feller would win, otherwise, the other.  One of the
> possibilities: split them, award 12 to each.  Had they done that, the
> outcome would have gone the other way.
>
>
>
> The decision eventually came down that the SCOTUS did not have sufficient
> justification to disqualify the election nor sufficient authority to force
> the state to split their vote (which was the functional equivalent of
> disqualifying the election.)  So… they admitted those 25 votes and that was
> that.
>
>
>
> The whole misadventure was a great civics lesson: it warmed my heart to
> hear the SCOTUS keep reminding us that its authority was only that which
> the constitution allowed.  All they could do was what was authorized in the
> document which gave them the legal authority to start with.
>
>
>
> I didn’t care which of those two won that election, for I didn’t vote for
> either of them, but I am a big fan of Supreme Court justices saying that
> the states control elections and the SCOTUS would swear in whoever the
> Electoral College said was the winner.
>
>
>
> I will note the risk of a disputed election is increased by the kinds of
> things California is doing, and the consequences are higher.  Remind us
> please why gun shops should be closed as non-essential businesses?
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200513/367e14d5/attachment.htm>