Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

OAnother interesting question is "why would they want to instill this
> > > power in an (umbrella) federal law enforcement agency".
>
> >   They aren't.
>
> You're right.  I misparsed a sentence in the news article which made
> me think they were asking homeland security chief Ridge to ask
> congress for the power; in fact, they are asking Ridge to ask congress
> to give that power to EAC itself.

 My theory is that you were intended to misparse the sentence by CNN.
> This changes nearly nothing because:
>
>      http://www.eac.gov/annualreport_2003.htm#sec1
>
>      The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the
>      establishment of an Election Assistance Commission (EAC) headed
>      by four commissioners, who are appointed by the President.
>
> The request here is to bestow the power on political appointees of the
> executive.

 Appointees that have to be approved by the Senate (and were 
unanimously), and the president has to appoint bipartisan members. This 
is pretty typical for minor committees like this; its hard enough to 
staff them without having to bother the Senate with approving them.

 Note that if Congress gave the EAC the power to delay an election, they
might change the rules.

> > They're talking about instilling the power in the Election
> > Assistance Commission, which is not a law enforcement agency,
>
> It is, however, the executive branch's appointees.   That Soaries
> rather than Ridge would have to sign the order does not seem to me
> like an important distinction, practically speaking.


 Ridge is the Secretary of a Cabinet-level department and highly 
partisan. Soaries is one of 4 members of a bipartisan commission, and a 
black Republican. Presumably, 3 out of the 4 members would have to vote 
to delay the election, which means at least one member would have to 
switch parties.

So yes, it is an important distinction between one person having the
decision making power, and 4 people voting on it.

> > and not part of the DHS. They're a bi-partisan commission, as I
> > pointed out in my previous rather long message. Basically,
> > they're the people who help states pay for new voting machines.
>
> And apparently would like to be rather much more than that.

 I dunno, this was kind of their job, they read the announcement from 
Ridge, though "hmmm...maybe we should do something" and asked Ridge to 
do something about it.

 This is all a tempest in a teapot.

 Pierce