Posted on 10/01/2002 6:03:54 PM PDT by eddie willers
I think you're right. As usual!
I noticed that you omitted the latter part of the statute, which gives context to the statute as a whole.But for the purpose of argument, I'll assume that it is perfectly okay to hold an election for the remainder of Torricelli's term, and that there are no Constitutional or statutory bars. However, we digress. The central issue is not whether a meaningless two month term is filled by election or appointment, but whether there is some justification to create a judicial exception to clear statutory language requiring 48 days to change a ballot.
I didn't omit anything, I was asking you about a particular statement. I read the rest of it. There is no context that changes the meaning of the statement I highlighted.
Yes, I think we understand what the central issues are. One step at a time please. Do you not read that statute as mandating and election to held at the next general election if he resigns more than 30 days before? The 48 days has nothing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.