|
Barring a Constitutional Amendment,would BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
|
| |
| |
"Jack Walsh" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:4046264F.DAFB3160@no.com...
Barring a Constitutional Amendment,would BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
You musta read this:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2430461
March 2, 2004, 10:34PM
Bill Clinton could be just the ticket for Kerry
By STEPHEN GILLERS
With John Kerry's success in Tuesday's primaries, the race for the
Democratic nomination for president is all but over -- and speculation about
his choice for vice president can now begin in earnest.
John Edwards, Kerry's closest rival [and who is expected to officially
withdraw from the race today], is a proven campaigner and could attract
Southern voters. Govs. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Richardson of New
Mexico have both regional appeal and executive experience. Dark-horse
candidates include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Sen.
Sam Nunn of Georgia.
Amid this conjecture, however, one name is conspicuously absent: Bill
Clinton.
Clinton's strengths would compensate for Kerry's weaknesses almost
perfectly. Not only is Clinton the most talented campaigner of his
generation, but he is also a Southerner -- and since 1948, when Harry S.
Truman chose Sen. Alben Barkley of Kentucky as his running mate, every
successful Democratic ticket has included a citizen of a Southern state.
Besides, people might even pay to watch Bill Clinton debate Dick Cheney. So
why not?
The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The
Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The
22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be
elected to the office of the president more than twice."
No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president.
Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be
interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this
language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but
nothing stops him from being elected vice president.
True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency.
But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment
forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which
provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his
powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not
prevent this succession.
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want the
job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?
We won't know until we ask, of course. But before asking, we might cite some
compelling reasons for both men to consider a Kerry-Clinton ticket
seriously.
For Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and
personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Clinton remains a
divisive figure in American politics -- but not so much among Democrats. And
surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that
was one of the hallmarks of his administration.
Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket,
Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast
peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all
of them.
And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for
Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago
promised to restore "character" to Clinton's own White House.
The only remaining question, then, is what Kerry thinks of all this. Judging
from recent debates, there's little chemistry between Kerry and Edwards.
But Kerry and Clinton would seem to have much in common; they are nearly the
same age, worked with each other in Washington for almost a decade and have
a shared interest in foreign affairs.
For Kerry, the question may well come down to whether adding Clinton to the
ticket would appreciably increase his chances of victory. A couple of polls
should give him the answer fast enough. If the results are good, the course
is clear: Bring him on.
Gillers is a professor of law at New York University.
|
| |
| |
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want the
job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?
Three questions, actually. The third is: Do the American people once
again want a lying, philandering, sexually and psychologically
disturbed, megalomaniacal sleazebag once again holding high office?
Of course, if someone wants to improve upon my phrasing...
Steve O.
|
| |
| |
"Steven O." <Steven@OpZZREMOVE_ALL_Zs_AND_ALL_BETWEEN_ZZComm.com> wrote in
message news:0qdc40pes3mr89q1egioie100c7of0qr3j@4ax.com...
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want
the
job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?
Three questions, actually. The third is: Do the American people once
again want a lying, philandering, sexually and psychologically
disturbed, megalomaniacal sleazebag once again holding high office?
As opposed to the lying, delusional, small-minded, court-appointed yee-ha
currently in office? ;-P
|
| |
| |
Point taken.
What I wonder about is, I personally am acquainted with so many
individuals -- some pretty sharp business executives and engineers,
just to name a few -- who are intelligent, morally grounded,
emotionally stable, of sound judgement, and reasonably articulate and
well-educated, ANY of whom would be a better President than Clinton or
Bush. Why can't we get some decent people to run for office?
Steve O.
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:58:20 GMT, "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Steven O." <Steven@OpZZREMOVE_ALL_Zs_AND_ALL_BETWEEN_ZZComm.com> wrote in
message news:0qdc40pes3mr89q1egioie100c7of0qr3j@4ax.com...
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want
the
job -- and would Kerry want him to take it?
As opposed to the lying, delusional, small-minded, court-appointed yee-ha
currently in office? ;-P
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:39:01 GMT, Jack Walsh <no@no.com> wrote:
Barring a Constitutional Amendment,would BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
The 22nd Amendment says: "No person shall be elected to the office of
the President more than twice..."
Doesn't say anything about not being elected Vice-President, and it
doesn't say anything about not being appointed Vice-President.
BUT:
The last sentence of the 12th Amendment (which changed the way in
which the President and Vice-President are elected) states that "no
person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be
elected to that of Vice-President of the United States."
So BC could not be elected Vice-President.
AND:
Section 2 of the 25th Amendment, which gives the President the power
to nominate a Vice-President, doesn't say anything about the
qualifications of the person appointed, but it wouldn't make any sense
for the President to be able to appoint someone who couldn't be
elected (whether due to age, citizenship, or previous elections), so I
would expect that the President is necessarily limited to those
eligible to be elected.
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
Why can't the decent men who run get elected?
Ralph Nader's a decent guy.
--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
"Steven O." <Steven@OpZZREMOVE_ALL_Zs_AND_ALL_BETWEEN_ZZComm.com> wrote in
message news:78hc40hp0jrsd6iir36gtict6jv3hls2cl@4ax.com...
Point taken. What I wonder about is, I personally am acquainted with so many individuals -- some pretty sharp business executives and engineers, just to name a few -- who are intelligent, morally grounded, emotionally stable, of sound judgement, and reasonably articulate and well-educated, ANY of whom would be a better President than Clinton or Bush. Why can't we get some decent people to run for office? Steve O. On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:58:20 GMT, "Zen Cohen" <aturny@hotmail.com> wrote: |
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Why can't the decent men who run get elected?
Ralph Nader's a decent guy.
Disputed.
|
| |
| |
Zen Cohen wrote:
Steven O. wrote:
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want
the job
Why shouldn't he? He'd take another shot at the White House any way that he
could get it.
-- and would Kerry want him to take it?
I would doubt it. I wouldn't put it past Slick Willie to take Kerry out,
with EXTREME prejudice.
Three questions, actually. The third is: Do the American people once
again want a lying, philandering, sexually and psychologically disturbed,
megalomaniacal sleazebag once again holding high office?
Those who are psychologically disturbed themselves probably would.
As opposed to the lying, delusional, small-minded, court-appointed yee-ha
currently in office? ;-P
As would those who are poor judges of character.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
It's probably not gonna happen--- but yes he could be elected Vice President.
The VP just has to be eligible to BE President, and Clinton still is eligible.
The 22nd Amendment just says that you cannot be elected President more than
twice. There is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent Clinton from
becoming President should he happen to be next in the line of succession when
the sitting President resigns, dies, or gets removed from office.
This issue has never come up as far as I know. The only ex-Presidents to hold
federal office were John Quincy Adams (who served in the House of
Representatives) and William Howard Taft (who became the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court), but neither man was in the line of succession. The closest we
came to having an ex-President as VP was in 1980, when Reagan considered
ex-President Ford as a possible running mate. The idea was scuttled because
(#1) both men lived in the same state, California, and (#2) Ford didn't really
want the job. (Reason #1 parallels the situation in 2000, when two residents
of Texas were nominated as the GOP ticket, but that time Dick Cheney opted to
officially move to his former home state of Wyoming.) If Ford had been elected
in 1976, he would have been ineligible to be re-elected President in 1980,
because he served more than half of Nixon's second term.
Another 2004 possibility, by the way, might be a Gore candidacy as Kerry's
running mate--- and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which
prevents Gore from being elected a third time to the Vice Presidency. (And NO,
Gore's popular-vote victory in 2000 does NOT count towards the 22nd Amendment
term limits...)
*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****
|
| |
| |
BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
It's probably not gonna happen--- but yes he could be elected Vice
President.
The VP just has to be eligible to BE President, and Clinton still is
eligible.
The 22nd Amendment just says that you cannot be elected President more
than
twice. There is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent Clinton
from
becoming President should he happen to be next in the line of succession
when
the sitting President resigns, dies, or gets removed from office.
Not true. The 12th amendment clearly states that "no person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elected to
that of Vice-President of the United States."
That would seem to indicate pretty clearly that Clinton could NOT be elected
Vice-President, since he is currently constitutionally ineligible to be
President..
On the other hand, it might be possible for him to be appointed Vice
President should the elected Vice President resign or be removed from
office. But I am sure it would be challenged in the courts and the Supreme
Court would probably rule pretty quickly.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:33:11 GMT, Rick <72242.3603@compuserve.com> wrote:
BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
President.
eligible.
than
from
when
Not true. The 12th amendment clearly states that "no person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elected to
that of Vice-President of the United States."
That would seem to indicate pretty clearly that Clinton could NOT be elected
Vice-President, since he is currently constitutionally ineligible to be
President..
You are missing the point. Clinton is ineligible to be *elected* president,
but he is not ineligible to *be* president via any other method (such as
being a cabinet member and having the the people ahead of him in
the line of succession resign.
Isaac
|
| |
| |
"Rick" <72242.3603@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<Hzw1c.30830$T86.5903@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
[snip]
Not true. The 12th amendment clearly states that "no person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elected to
that of Vice-President of the United States."
That would seem to indicate pretty clearly that Clinton could NOT be elected
Vice-President, since he is currently constitutionally ineligible to be
President..
On the other hand, it might be possible for him to be appointed Vice
President should the elected Vice President resign or be removed from
office. But I am sure it would be challenged in the courts and the Supreme
Court would probably rule pretty quickly.
The 22nd Amendment is written badly enough to make it not so clear. It
forbids the election of anyone who has been twice elected, or served
more than two years of an unexpired term and been elected once. It
does not come out and say that such a person is ineligible to the
office; it says that such a person may not be elected to the office.
This leaves open the possibility that such a person might properly
succeed to the office without being elected.
Other places (II.1.5, Amd. XII, 3 USC 19) use the language
"[in]eligible to the office", so either the 22nd Amendment means
something else or it is badly written.
As unlikely as it is, if it were to occur, it would surely wind up in
a hot dispute before the Supreme Court.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Zen Cohen wrote:
So much for the constitutional obstacles. The political ones may be more
formidable. They can be summarized in two questions: Would Clinton want
the job
Why shouldn't he? He'd take another shot at the White House any way that he
could get it.
He's probably tired of being irrelevant.
-- and would Kerry want him to take it?
I would doubt it. I wouldn't put it past Slick Willie to take Kerry out,
with EXTREME prejudice.
You mean, like what happened to James "Fortunate Son" Hatfield? The
usual causes for political enemies: "Apparent suicide."
Kind of reminds me of the good old days (ca. 1990), when we slept
well at night knowing that if anything ever happened to Bush, Sr., the
Secret Service had orders to shoot Dan Quayle on sight. ;-)
Three questions, actually. The third is: Do the American people once
again want a lying, philandering, sexually and psychologically disturbed,
megalomaniacal sleazebag once again holding high office?
Those who are psychologically disturbed themselves probably would.
IOW, the millions who voted for the guy in the first place (of which
I am not a subset, fwiw)?
As opposed to the lying, delusional, small-minded, court-appointed yee-ha
currently in office? ;-P
You forgot "petty, self-absorbed religious nutter."
As would those who are poor judges of character.
IOW, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king?
|
| |
| |
Rick wrote:
BC be allowed to serve
as VP at any poin in the future,either as the result of having been
elected or appointed (the Gerald Ford scenario)?
Not true. The 12th amendment clearly states that "no person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elected to
that of Vice-President of the United States."
And if the Scalia wing read that passage the way they would
*normally* read it, they would read it the way it was intended: in
conjunction with Art. II, sec. 5. But we've seen how they sodomized the
Equal Protection Clause....
That would seem to indicate pretty clearly that Clinton could NOT be elected
Vice-President, since he is currently constitutionally ineligible to be
President..
On the other hand, it might be possible for him to be appointed Vice
President should the elected Vice President resign or be removed from
office. But I am sure it would be challenged in the courts and the Supreme
Court would probably rule pretty quickly.
And given who's on the Court <"Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack">,
you *KNOW* how they would rule....
EVERY significant state and federal high court decision on election
disputes in the past four years has been decided along party lines.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith sez:
EVERY significant state and federal high court decision on election
disputes in the past four years has been decided along party lines.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!
There was a dispute in 2000 which never made it to the Supreme Court. In 2000,
the Republicans nominated two Texans, George W. Bush of Crawford, TX and
Richard Cheney of Highland Park, TX for its national ticket. The Constitution
states that electors cannot vote for two candidates from their own state for
both President and Vice President.
Some Democrats in Texas did try to bring a suit challenging the fact that a
slate of electors pledged (possibly illegally) to both Bush and Cheney was on
the ballot. But the state and national party apparatus refused to support the
suit which went nowhere. (Especially after Cheney made a pretext of moving to
Wyoming, a state which he did represent in Congress some years ago and where he
did still own a second home.)
Later on, when the electoral votes were counted, some Congressional Democrats
wanted to challenge the Texas votes, but the leadership told the disgruntled
members to back off.
If Clinton is nominated as VP, there will undoubtedly be some Republicans who
will try to take the issue to the Supreme Court. However, it is not clear if
they could do so. Until the electoral college meets, no votes have been cast,
so there is not much you can do in federal court to challenge votes which have
not been taken. (Though there was that incident in Florida in 2000 when the
SCOTUS voted to allow one slate of electors to vote even though it was still
not clear if they were validly elected.)
Once the votes have been taken, it is up to the Congress to decide whether or
not they are valid. And there is no appeals mechanism set up if the Congress
makes a mistake (e.g., by interpreting the 22nd Amendment incorrectly.) The
Congress sets its own rules, and the Supreme Court may not have any
jurisdiction over the Congress's decision to count (or not count) electoral
votes for Bill Clinton as Vice President. (Yes, the Courts frequently overturn
unconstitutional laws, but when they do this, it's just the law itself which is
overturned: the Court doesn't nullify the process which led to the law's
passage in the first place.)
*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Rick wrote:
And if the Scalia wing read that passage the way they would *normally* read
it, they would read it the way it was intended: in conjunction with Art.
II, sec. 5.
Ken is apparently having delusions again. (There are only 4 sections to
Article 2 of the Constitution.)
But we've seen how they sodomized the Equal Protection Clause ...
Oh? How's that? Because the Colorado Bar Examiners perceived that you might
have psychological problems because of what you wrote in your Bob Larson
website, and asked you to submit to a psychological examination on that basis
when you applied to be a lawyer in Colorado, this somehow represents "prior
restraint" on your 1st Amendment rights? Is that it?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Horrigan wrote:
There was a dispute in 2000 which never made it to the Supreme Court. In 2000,
the Republicans nominated two Texans, George W. Bush of Crawford, TX and
Richard Cheney of Highland Park, TX for its national ticket. The Constitution
states that electors cannot vote for two candidates from their own state for
both President and Vice President.
It appears that Richard Cheney had moved (back) to Wyoming some
time before the election.
Nice try, though.
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060503080900070008000500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
But not from John Kerry's.
Kerry might find him to be an asset. He's a great campaigner, and
I'd pay good money to see him swuare off against "the Dick." He's seen
as a moderate by all but the hard-core 'Pubs, and he managed to at least
stay out of the way of the economy. And we've already spent eight years
on his training....
Not true. The 12th amendment clearly states that "no person
constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be elected to
that of Vice-President of the United States."
Ken is apparently having delusions again. (There are only 4 sections to
Article 2 of the Constitution.)
Bad Dobbie! Forgot to look it up. Correct cite: Art. II, sec. 1[5].
But we've seen how they sodomized the Equal Protection Clause ...
Oh? How's that?
By the "Gang of Five" invoking it in Bush v. Gore in such a way that
it violated nearly a century of their combined jurisprudence -- simply
because partisan Republican Sandy Dee wanted her successor named by a
Republican president, Antonin Scalia wants to be the next Chief Justice,
and William "Nixon's Revenge" Rehnquist wanted to preserve his legacy of
disemboweling the Bill of Rights.
[snipped Ted's same old irrelevant personal attack]
At least, we know that a Los Angeles court didn't violate the law
when he ordered Cam Brown held without bail on the grounds that he
apparently
threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff. And how is
it that a faithful, observant Christian HAS [or I should say, "had," as
it appears from what Ted says that it is virtually certain that he would
be responsible for Lauren's death] an illegitimate daughter in the first
place?
I'd appreciate it if we could have just one conversation without you
going immediately ad hominem....
--------------060503080900070008000500
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstopten.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstopten.eml"
From - Tue Feb 17 21:36:05 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40324116.4090900@it.com>
From: Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
Reply-To: Ranger57@concentric.net
Organization: ?????
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,ca.general,alt.true-crime,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Top Ten Reasons Why Cam Brown Couldn't Have Murdered His Illegitimate
Daughter
References: <402EDB4C.EBC59AF6@worldnet.att.net> <20040215040549.28324.00002074@mb-m15.aol.com> <402F75EF.8030900@it.com> <102v1sb7slngmde@corp.supernews.com> <402F9FDA.34061870@worldnet.att.net> <102vc8anngvikd0@corp.supernews.com> <x0PXb.399$kR3.34@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <402FC9E6.167FFFA1@worldnet.att.net> <V85Yb.9787$kR3.5857@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <40310396.B475890D@worldnet.att.net> <40312F9A.2020908@it.com> <qlaYb.8260$fE4.254@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <40313A31.98957B56@worldnet.att.net> <403159D8.4090207@it.com> <K9dYb.63702$8a5.26872@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <4031812E.5050106@it.com> <4031A164.7E79F878@worldnet.att.net> <4031FFC7.5030300@it.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------010500030208070406090901"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:29:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.239.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1077035342 67.234.239.227 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:410425 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178834 ca.general:103643 alt.true-crime:831465 alt.politics.homosexuality:721313
X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Top Ten Reasons Why Cameron Brown Couldn't
Have Murdered His Illegitimate Daughter
10. The cops lusted after his Mike Ditka autograph.
9. Is this (http://www.freecambrown.org/pictures/xPix06.jpg) the face
of a murd-- (er, on second thought, strike that!)
8. It was the carpet-munching swarthy dot-head fat chick behind the
grassy knoll (see some of Teddi's Greatest Hits, attached).
7. Assistant D.A. Craig Hum is a "stealth candidate" for L.A.
District Attorney. (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/la/county.html)
6. They couldn't find enough LEGITIMATE crimes in L.A. to investigate.
5. If no one saw it, it couldn't have happened.
4. The State's expert witness was paid.
3. "BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know
sh*t." [Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
2. It is reasonable to think a four-year-old girl would get a running
start and take a flying leap off that cliff. [I'm not making this up --
Ted actually suggested this!]
1. God TOLD Ted Kaldis while he was reading his Bible on the #@($ter.
Teddi, get a @$#*in' grip!!!!! You are totally out of control, Dude!
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
|
| |
| |
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<40476192.978E094D@sprintmail.com>...
It appears that Richard Cheney had moved (back) to Wyoming some
time before the election.
Nice try, though.
Well, he moved back the week after he was nominated. And he never
actually moved out of his house in the Dallas suburbs. He just
changed his voting registration--- even though the Constitution says
"resident", not "registered voter" :-)
He also never stopped taking a homestead tax credit applied to the
property taxes on first homes in Texas.
|
| |
| |
|
