
|
|
Harvard Law School Lies for GoreNovember 13, 2000 A professor at Harvard Law School wants Al Gore to win so badly in Florida that he lied for him in a column in the Washington Post last Friday. The column was by Prof. Philip B. Heymann and titled, ‘The Case for a Do-Over.” Heymann argued that we need a new election in Florida. He questions the validity of the ballot that was used in Palm Beach. He opined, “A Florida statute forbids the ballot form that seems to have confused so many [in Palm Beach].” But he does not tell the truth. When he told his readers about that Florida statute, he purposefully left out four words in the law that he doesn’t like. Here’s what he wrote. (As you read, be sure to pay attention to the three dots that he inserted because they indicate that something was left out at that spot.) Professor Heymann: “[The Palm Beach ballot] is illegal by Florida statutes designed to eliminate the confusion that infected this election. Section 101.560 of Florida law states: ‘When an electronic or electromechanical voting system’ is used, ‘the ballot information shall…be in the order of arrangement provided for paper ballots.’ Section 101.27(3) repeats the same requirement.” The Truth: Here’s what the statute actually says, including the four words he left out: ‘the ballot information shall, as far as practicable, be in the order of arrangement provided for paper ballots." [emphasis added] We understand that Harvard Law School is partisan and political, but do they want a Democrat to win so badly that they will lie in order to achieve their goal? We can all see that the law does not require that the machine ballots be identical to the paper ballots. The words “as far as practicable” makes that clear. That’s why Prof. Heymann didn’t want us to know that those words are there. Guess who this Harvard man worked for before he came to Massachusetts? He was a deputy attorney general in the Clinton/Gore administration. A person can argue that a lie by one professor does not taint the entire school. But if there are no corrections or apologies made, it certainly does. We are indebted for this information to an article in the National Review by Robert Alt, adjunct fellow at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. http://www.nationalreview.com/rapid/rapid111000.shtml
|