Mav,

"And in at least one case, the instructions were to make a selection on both pages of the ballot. Unfortunately, the county split the presidential candidates and printed five on page one, five on page two. Following instructions to the letter, people voted on both pages" The rest of the story is; Those directions were given by DEMOCRAT activists rounding up and registering busloads of FIRST TIME VOTERS, who knew nothing about the issues and followed the directions to a T. They did the same thing up here with college students. They threw the instructional cards on the ground and we found them (only they didn't screw up their ballots)

Doesn't matter who did it. It happened and the appearance is that it wasn't dealt with very effectively. And the instructions were printed on the ballot.

Familiarity with the issues isn't a requirement to vote. And shouldn't be as it allows to many abuses.

Without italicizing the rest, I read the Supreme Court Opinions (Florida and US). My point about the State being the determinate had nothing to do with the issue of selection of Electors, but with the issue of States Rights. Clearly, the USSC didn't fully agree.

And to quote back from the dissenting opinion: The whole thing is available HERE Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The Constitution assigns to the States the primary responsibility for determining the manner of selecting the Presidential electors. See Art. II, §§1, cl. 2. When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers. On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion. Lest there be any doubt, we stated over 100 years ago in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892), that ""[w]hat is forbidden or required to be done by a State"" in the Article II context ""is forbidden or required of the legislative power under state constitutions as they exist."" In the same vein, we also observed that ""[t]he [State''s] legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State."" Ibid.; cf. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 367 (1932).1

The legislative power in Florida is subject to judicial review pursuant to Article V of the Florida Constitution, and nothing in Article II of the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the constraints in the state constitution that created it.

What the majority did not address specifically (and what gave rise to the accusations of partianship, was why, suddenly, the right of the State wasn't paramount. Even the affirming decision weighs more heavily (in my mind) on the side of lack of definitive standards than really questioning the idea of a recount.

The result has been that even normally conservative constitutional scholars are puzzled by the decision and it's implications

I agree, but in one instance last fall, they did "jump into the fray" uninvited by either side. I will try to find the incident.

Please do. But remember, they can also be asked for an opinion by public officials.

His politics are the only reason to be a Newt fan

Then why (which you knew was coming) and by inference does anything but Clinton's politics matter?

Do you like Cajun/Thai/Indian Curry/Soul/Downhome cooking?

Yes to all except the McClellands Regards

John