https://newsmakingnews.com

CONTENTS NOVEMBER 11, 2000

Click OUTRAGEOUS DIRT!  Terrorists who bombed USS Cole were helped in their murderous attack by officials in the Yemeni government who fought with them in Afghanistan.

Click. This is the BIO of the German "NAZI" who has put SS Death Head logo at the National Park at Cape Henry. by NatoWife

Click. Ruling Says Parents Have Right to See List of Sites Students Visit

Click. DUTCH GOVERNMENT BURNED BY THEIR INFORMERS PEDDLING DRUGS ON THE SIDE. 

Click.  Why stage election this way? by Jon Roland

Click. Assault Weapon Storage!

Click.  ADAM CLYMER (THE "A-HOLE"). BUSH CONDEMNED HIM\ WITH A VULGARITY!  NOW IT'S PAYBACK TIME!

Click. WATCH OUT! DESTABILIZATION!  CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! 


YEMENI OUTRAGE
Saturday,November 11,2000  New York Post


Word out of the Middle East is that the terrorists who bombed USS Cole were helped in their murderous attack by officials in the Yemeni government who fought with them in Afghanistan.

And in a deliberate move to keep Washington's prying eyes from uncovering proof of this link, Yemeni authorities have thus far tried to keep U.S. investigators at arm's length from the investigation - and even denied the U.S. request to indirectly question those who are currently detained.

Sound familiar?

It should.

Back in 1996, the FBI was similarly stymied by the Saudi government when the FBI wanted to conduct a hands-on investigation of the deadly terrorist truck bombing of the Khobar Towers military complex in Dhahran.

The explosion left 19 U.S. airmen dead and more than 300 others wounded.

In a matter of days, the Saudis arrested four people; one confessed on Saudi TV, after which he and the others were beheaded.

Dead men tell no tales, and the tales those four could have told apparently would have caused acute embarrassment to the Saudi government.

That's why U.S. law-enforcement personnel were at no time allowed to question them, or to take part in any way in the investigation.

It's frustrating enough that the Clinton-Gore administration's legacy is one of leaving our troops hopelessly vulnerable to terrorist attack.

That the host government apparently played a role in the attack on Cole or in a coverup - and Washington is doing little more than asking for "more cooperation" - is positively outrageous.

It is not, sad to say, in the least bit surprising.


This is the BIO of the German "NAZI" who has put SS Death Head logo at the National Park at Cape Henry.  by NatoWife

FYI: This is the guy who authorized putting NAZI Death Head symbols at Ft.Story National site for children and parents to see. 

This guy began his "career" as an assassin who liked to kill people. Read the BIO below. And the entire webpage for his Kingdom...which has not real oversight. And also notice Colonel BACH is in charge of training JROTC and ROTC units...He alone seals each and every boys fate...and the CNO/SecDef/etc gave given him total authority.( See references below ) 

Get this ENTIRE web page up....print it out and send it to friends.  When reading COLONEL BRIAN BACH'S BIO.... notice that... fresh out of high school... he went into a "shooter" Nam unit... and liked it !!!  He was then made a Team and Squad leader !!!!!  Those of you who served in Nam know what that means. He enjoyed killing people. And he liked getting other men to join him in killing people. Notice BACH's quick rise to the top of the Special Security ( SS)  UN  EUCOM  Plans-Policy-People groups. He now has total authority for America's assassins. And he is in a direct Joint  NWO Command with no real oversight. Cohen, Pace, Jones, Kulak, etc are all afraid of this guy...This is why they will not make him take down the NAZI SS Death Head symbols at Cape Henry 1607 historic site...  

Has this man and his SS clones totally taken over America ? Is this the new Hitler ?? One guy with total control ???   

Also notice in Chapter 3 of Guidance to Using Commands, Students and Training units that:  
1. JROTC high school boys and girls are now being enrolled in German SS "Col." Bach's courses which are globally run and take in international "units" ( people).
 
2. "Foreign students" are now training with American high school JROTC boys and girls... and he picks them out with no oversight...See #3 below.( page 4, b. top of page ). 
 
3. That NAZI SS German Bach has total control and can let in "special units" with his own o.k. and no one else can say a thing ( p.3 (3) "Exceptions to this policy will be granted on a case-by-case basis by the Commanding officer, EWTGLANT. Only the Commanding officer will sent reservists back to their parent command."
NOTICE this DICTATOR has assumed total "Authority" on page 4 of Chapter i: "Authority for scheduling, administration, quota control and conducting courses to support training requirements to the U.S. Atlantic Fleet Headquarters, U.S. Marine Force Atlantic and the Reserve ( note from BB 4th marine New Orleans assassin Templar global group with Israel , etc.and thus not under US control )establishment have been delegated to the Commanding Officer EWTGLANT. ( In the previous paragraph it was stated that these functions were under CINCLANTFLT, CMC and BUPERS ...but right under it, the "Authority" was given to just one man...and you are looking at the new Hitler...He has total control over all SEALS, all Marine and all international assassins and dirty tricks boys globally and he networks with countries which are enemies of America. All is secret and the only enemies are those folks who do not like NAZI SS Death Head symbols. 

History,
Mission and
Organization
Commanding
Officer
Location
Course Catalog
On-Line
Registration
Search Our Site
Department Links
EWTGPAC
EWTGLANT Mail (OWA)
Navy Jobs
Feedback
Home Page

Officere.gif (84587 bytes)

Commanding Officer
Expeditionary Warfare Training Group, Atlantic
Brian J. Bach
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps

Colonel Brian J. Bach, USMC

 

Colonel Bach enlisted in the U. S. Marine Corps in August 1968 and served in Vietnam with Company L, 3d Battalion, 9th Marines, 3d Marine Division as a rifleman, fire team leader and squad leader.

 Upon graduation from Western Washington State College, Colonel Bach attended Officer Candidate School, graduating with the 95th OCC, and The Basic School, graduating in July 1976.  His first assignment was as a platoon commander, followed by duties as an executive officer, and later as commanding officer of Company C, 1st battalion, 9th Marines.  Upon his return from Okinawa in July 1977, he served as a series commander and later as company commander, 2d and 1st Recruit Training Battalions, MCRD San Diego.  Reporting to the 1st Marine Division in August 1980, he assumed command of Company B, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, and later served as Battalion S-3.  He then attended Amphibious Warfare School, Class of 1983-84.  Upon graduation, he was assigned as a military observer to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, Palestine, where he served in Observer Group Beirut and Observer Group Lebanon.  Returning to the U.S. in August 1985, he was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, where he served in Eastern Regional Branch, Plans Division.

 Colonel Bach was subsequently assigned as a student at Command and Staff College in Class 1988-89, and he then served on the faculty at AWS for three years.  Reporting to the 1st Marine Division in June 1992, he served as G-3 Operations Officer and participated in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia.  He then assumed command of 2d, Battalion, 5th Marines and BLT 2/5, 11th MEU(SOC).  He was then assigned to attend the National Security Studies Program, Kennedy School of government, Harvard University.  Upon graduation, he served the next three years as Contingency Plans Branch Chief, J35, J3 Operations Directorate, Headquarters, U.S. European Command.  He returned to the U.S. in July 1998 and assumed duties as Head, Current Operations Branch, Operations Division, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps.

 Colonel Bach earned a MS in Systems Management from the University of Southern California and a MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University, Washington, DC.  He is married to the former Helen Eid of Oslo, Norway.  They have four children, Jonathan, Stephanie and twins, Christopher and Nicholas.


November 10, 2000
CYBER LAW JOURNAL

Ruling Says Parents Have Right to See List of Sites Students Visit

By CARL S. KAPLAN

 


In an opinion sure to heighten the tension between some parents and school systems over the Internet's role in publicly financed education, a New Hampshire judge has decided that a parent is entitled to see a list of the Internet sites or addresses visited by computer users at local schools.

Unless overturned on appeal, the ruling by Judge Gillian L. Abramson of Rockingham Country Superior Court means that James M. Knight of Exeter, N.H., who brought the lawsuit last summer, may review a copy of the "Internet history log" files from computers maintained by two local school districts. The computer disk files contain a record of Internet sites visited by computer users -- students, staff, faculty -- within the Exeter Region Cooperative School District and the Exeter School District.

Significantly, in an attempt to protect individual students' privacy, the court said that the schools must write a computer program that removes user names and passwords from the Internet History Log files before making the Web site lists available to Knight, which both sides agreed would be easy to do. In addition, the costs of the editing and the disk copying must be paid by Knight or any other person requesting the records, the court said.

But "since the respondents have the capacity to produce the record in a manner that does not reveal confidential information," the judge said, the history log file "is not exempt" from the state's Right-to-Know law.

Greg Kann, chairman of the Exeter Region Cooperative School Board, said in an interview that school board members would soon meet with their laywer and the superintendents to consider legal options. A decision on whether to appeal may be made as soon Friday, he said.

Jon Meyer, a lawyer in Manchester, N.H., who has experience in education law and civil rights cases, said that the New Hampshire decision is the first he is aware of involving a parent's right to gain access to school Internet records. He predicted that if Judge Abramson's ruling is not overturned, anxious parents in other states might be emboldened to use local right-to-know laws to gain access to and review school Internet history log files to check on student online activity.

Meyer also observed that one of the main issues in the Knight case was the balance between the values of privacy and disclosure. "It appears likely that the judge thought those issues could be reconciled" by editing out identifying personal information, he said.

Knight, a master plumber whose four children had attended schools in the Exeter area two years ago before transferring to private schools, has been a vocal critic of the local school boards' decision not to require filtering or blocking software on school computers. Concerned that students were visiting pornographic or other inappropriate Web sites, he sought access to Internet history log files from 1998 -- the date when a majority of local students gained online access in schools -- to the present. The lever he used was the state's Right-to-Know law, which requires public documents to be disclosed on request.

One of the key issues resolved by Judge Abramson's decision is whether history log files maintained by schools are "public records" under the disclosure law. School officials had argued in court papers that the files were private because students using school computers to access the Internet are not doing the official business of any public body. Rejecting this argument as "flawed," Judge Abramson said that students in schools are not using the computers for personal use "but as an integral part of the education curriculum." Thus the records of such official computer use must be deemed public, she asserted.


DUTCH GOVERNMENT BURNED BY THEIR INFORMERS PEDDLING DRUGS ON THE SIDE.

Source: US STATE DEPARTMENT VIA INTERNET.

The Dutch government is still embarrassed by what they call the 'IRT affair' in the late 1980s-early 1990s in which Dutch drug traffickers, working as informers for regional anti-drug units, exploited their relationship with the police. They imported cocaine and cannabis in huge quantities, parallel to the controlled imports being monitored by IRT officers.


Dutch ban all use of undercover agents in drug trafficking investigations

Following the scandal, the Dutch government imposed a complete ban on the use of undercover agents in drug trafficking investigations.

Encouraged by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the use of covert operatives led to widespread corruption among senior police officers, customs officials and civil servants, and the "loss" of thousands of kilos of controlled drug shipments. It has been disclosed that the unexpected arrest recently in Panama City, Panama in connection with trafficking between Holland and the US, was the result of an 18-month investigation in which an undercover DEA agent infiltrated the Moear trafficking organization.

At the request of the American authorities, members of the network in Holland were placed under 24-hour surveillance.

Background

In March of last year a meeting was held between the Moear group and the undercover DEA agent. They offered to supply an unlimited quantity of XTC at $5-$6.50 per tablet, as well as cocaine from Colombia and heroin from Turkey and Pakistan.

A second meeting took place in Miami in July at which price and quantity were agreed and samples of the products passed to the undercover agent.

In September, the Italian partner of Moear obtained the first batch of XTC, manufactured in a lab located at an Italian restaurant in Rotterdam. Two months later, a German was arrested at a hotel in Frankfurt and later charged with supplying dealers in the US with XTC manufactured at the Rotterdam lab.


Moear's book, "The Godmother," should be a hot seller and explain some of the secretive ways these gangs did business

Meanwhile, Thea Moear travelled to Holland to promote her memoirs, "The Godmother." Moear then left Holland and settled in Panama City.

Some official sources believe Moear was kept under surveillance during her book promotion and allowed to leave the country to create a false sense of security and carelessness which might lead her eventual arrest in Panama. The US authorities are now seeking her extradition from Panama. If found guilty for her alleged crimes, she faces a 40 year prison term.


Why stage election this way? by Jon Roland

Most allegations of vote fraud are that one side steals votes from the other, but the classic exposé - Votescam - presented evidence that many if not most elections are fixed, the winner and the vote count determined by persons unknown who transcend parties and manipulate elections, at least those using punch card ballots, for their own purposes. Part of this book is online at http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm and is available for sale at
http://www.votescam.com/ .

The present election raises the question, if elections are rigged, and staged to deceive American voters that their votes count, then why stage this scenario?

One possible motive would be to dispel the theory that elections are rigged, by staging an election that, for all its defects, does not look like a rigged election. The suspicion that elections are fixed has been spreading among the people ever since _Votescam_ came out in 1992, and has been a major factor in the growth of the militia movement. What better way to misdirect such suspicion than by staging an election that does not look fixed?

But there is an additional explanation that may explain this drama. The clues for it are appearing on the op-ed pages, many of which are calling for an overhaul in the mechanics of voting to make the counting of votes faster and more accurate, and reduce the confusion and errors of inexperienced voters. Many such voices are demanding federal standards for ballots and voting machines, and however the election comes out, we can expect federal legislation to be introduced to do that.

We need to be careful what we ask for. The Constitution provides authority for federal legislation governing elections of members of Congress in Article I Section 4 Clause 1, but there is no such authority for federal laws governing the election of presidential electors. Of course, they are elected in the same elections, using the same methods, so regulation of voting for members of Congress would probably be used for presidential elections, but we need to be suspicious of "reforms". Most reform legislation that gets any support from establishment politicians is deceptive, serving not its ostensible purpose but the protection of the establishment. Federal ballot and voting machine standards are likely to better facilitate control of the outcomes by the same elements that now have only partial control of election outcomes. The ultimate
would be electronic voting, which critics fear would enable outside elements to control either how people vote or how the votes are counted. It is not just private partisan hackers that such systems would be threatened by. The main threat comes from elements within the government.

It is well to use this election to stimulate a national debate on the election process, including its susceptibility to vote fraud and how vote fraud can be effectively thwarted. There are methods of electronic voting that could be secure, provided that the systems and software are "open source" and open to inspection. However, all such systems are vulnerable if something is not done to validate the identities and qualifications of voters, and make sure no one can vote more than once, or for anyone else. That raises the issue of identification systems, and the specter of a national identification system
that would confer central control over the identification of persons, a control that almost certainly could and would be abused for political purposes. What we don't need is a Fedeal Bureau of Identification that can make anyone it doesn't like a nonperson, give him the identity of a fugitive criminal or madman, or prevent him from earning a living. The "mark of the beast" scenario is not just a prediction in Revelations, but an emergent daily reality that deserves serious attention to prevent.

The American people need to become alert to the fact that most historical events are, to a large degree, staged to manipulate them, discern what they are being manipulated to do and why, and decide if they really want to go there.

--Jon Roland © 2000


From: "Shoestring Graphics" <
To: <
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 5:52 AM
Subject: Assault Weapon Storage!

 PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL CALIFORNIANS
 
 To see this information in html format,  go to http://www.frontsight.com/store_guns.htm

 Store Your Assault Weapons At Front Sight Las Vegas FREE OF CHARGE

 California's SB23 requires just about every semi-automatic rifle with  a detachable box magazine and pistol grip or thumbhole stock to be   registered as an Assault Weapon by December 31, 2000 or removed from  the State of California to avoid felony prosecution.

 What should you do?  Legally comply with SB23. You can rest comfortably  knowing that your unregistered assault weapons are safely locked,  secured, insured, and guarded around the clock by Front Sight's armed  security personnel, and readily accessible for your exclusive use in Front
 Sight's world class training courses and on Front Sight's private ranges  at their 550 acre firearms training facility near Las Vegas, Nevada.

 Here is how it works:

 Option 1:  Purchase a Special Course Certificate at our regular  catalogue price of $1000 that is transferable, has no expiration date  and is redeemable for a Four Day course in Defensive Handgun or Tactical  Shotgun or Practical Rifle. For every certificate purchased you may store
 up to 3 assault rifles or assault pistols for TWO YEARS at Front Sight's  Las Vegas, Nevada training facility FREE OF CHARGE. You may continue to  store your weapons after the second year under the same terms.

 Option 2:  Purchase a Special Course Certificate at our regular  catalogue price of $500 that is transferable, has no expiration date  and is redeemable for a Two Day course in Defensive Handgun or Tactical  Shotgun or Practical Rifle. For every certificate purchased you may store
 up to 3 assault rifles or assault pistols for ONE YEAR at Front Sight's  Las Vegas, Nevada training facility FREE OF CHARGE. You may continue to  store your weapons after the first year under the same terms.

 You may remove your assault weapons at any time as they remain your  weapons while stored by Front Sight.  Large collections negotiated on  a case by case basis.

 Option 3:  You may trade any .223 or .308 assault rifle that is complete  with a box magazine for a Special Course Certificate to attend a Four  Day course in Defensive Handgun or Tactical Shotgun or Practical Rifle.  You may trade any 7.62 X 39 assault rifle or assault pistol of any caliber
 that is complete with a box magazine for a Two Day course in Defensive  Handgun or Tactical Shotgun or Practical Rifle. This way you also comply  with SB23 and receive equal or greater value for your assault rifle in  the form of world class training that will last you a lifetime.

 What you should do next:  Call 1.800.987.7719 to purchase your Special  Course Certificates.  Front Sight accepts Visa, Mastercard, personal  and business checks.  Upon purchase, your certificates, a map to Front  Sight, and the procedure for delivering and storing your weapons will
 be Priority Mailed to you. Also feel free to visit Front Sight's web  site at http:www.frontsight.com or e-mail us at

 DO NOT DELAY.  THIS IS A LIMITED OFFER.  FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED.
                      CALL 1.800.987.7719 TODAY

 Dr. Ignatius A. Piazza
 Founder and Director
 Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
 phone     1.800.987.7719
 fax       (831) 684-2137
 e-mail   
 web site  http://www.frontsight.com


No Constitutional Crisis?
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995

 Saturday, 11-Nov-00 14:21:40

      No Constitutional Crisis?
      by Robert Lederman

      What a mess. Two candidates no one wanted in the first place
      are now locked in a dispute over votes that promises to
      invalidate the 2000 presidential election and perhaps the entire
      illusion of fair elections in the United States. Whichever
      candidate ultimately assumes office-supposing that one of them
      eventually does-will forever be seen by a majority of
      Americans as an illegitimate president.

      Was this political disaster caused by simple incompetence, by
      an exceptionally poorly designed ballot or by a last-ditch effort
      by the Bush campaign-his brother Jeb is Governor of Florida-to
      fix an election he was losing? The problem with blaming Bush
      is that if his campaign fixed this election they certainly did an
      extremely sloppy job of it that does Bush maximum harm
      before he's even inaugurated. The Bush dynasty loses almost as
      much status by winning in this way as if G.W. had clearly lost
      to Gore. Does anyone benefit from this situation?

      If your goal is to destabilize the present system in this country
      and institute a coup, martial law or something else even more
      drastic this could be a very effective first step. As
      demonstrations erupt across the nation, recounts spread to other
      states and elected officials begin to publicly choose sides things
      are likely to get much more chaotic and devisive.

      If a Constitutional convention or a nation-wide re-election is
      called for it would open the door for all kinds of changes to
      occur that would not normally have any chance of being
      proposed due to the built in obstacles of our slow-moving
      political system. The kinds of conflict these proposed changes
      would cause in the streets and in Congress might well lead to a
      civil war, a revolution or a coup.

      Chaos presents the opportunity for drastic change. Who
      traditionally uses artificially-created political instability and
      de-legitimized elections to effect drastic political change? The
      CIA.

      The CIA-influenced media appears to have had an
      astonishingly accurate picture of what the outcome of this
      election would be long before it was finished. Did they really
      use polls or was it a crystal ball?

      Too Close To Call has been the predominate theme for most of
      the past year. Perhaps America is really this evenly decided
      between Democrat and Republican, Gore and Bush or perhaps
      we have been set up for this fiasco over the course of the entire
      election campaign. That a largely Jewish section of Florida was
      seemingly tricked into voting for Buchanan-a candidate who
      openly praises Hitler-is the kind of Nazi-inspired humor we
      can expect from the CIA-which just earlier this year admitted a
      profound 50 year connection to thousands of top level former
      Nazis [See: UPI 9/20/2000 "CIA says Nazi general was
      intelligence source"].

      The only sure result we have right now is that both major party
      candidates appear to have no mandate and the non-traditional
      candidates have been proven to have either no substantial
      following or, in the case of Nader, are being are blamed for
      causing this whole mess. In other words, every presidential
      candidate has experienced a dramatic loss of prestige and
      legitimacy and America has no one who can even pretend to
      represent the people in 2001.

      There is one person who stands to immediately benefit from
      this morass and that is President Clinton who has made it clear
      he'd have liked a third term. If the election result is not
      resolved by January, Clinton may remain as President
      indefinitely. The Presidential orders he has signed for FEMA
      and other contingency plans which involve a suspension of the
      Constitution could go into effect for seemingly legitimate
      reasons.

      Clinton has long-established ties to both the Bush and
      Rockefeller dynasties, to the CIA and to the most elite factions
      of the New World Order. With Hillary winning the election in
      New York the Clintons now appear, in contrast to the
      presidential candidates, as beacons of stability and legitimacy.

      No Constitutional crisis? Get ready for a bumpy New Year.

      Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
      (Artists Response To Illegal State Tactics)
      (718) 743-3722

      Robert Lederman


GORE CAN WIN THE ELECTION RIGHT NOW WITHOUT FLORIDAWouldn't it be poetic justice if the man George W. Bush called "a major legue asshole" turns out to be the one who found a way to deprive him of the presidency? In today's New York Times, Adam Clymer wrote: "Some commentators [including Politex] have suggested that the election would be thrown to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives if neither Vice President Al Gore nor Gov. George W. Bush of Texas gets a majority of the 538 electors for whom Americans voted on Tuesday. But the Constitution requires only that a winning candidate have the votes of "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." If Florida's votes are not resolved by then, or if a legal restraining order bars Gov. Jeb Bush from filing a certificate listing Florida's electors, then Mr. Gore has enough votes from other states, if current vote totals stand and if his electors keep their pledges, to reach a majority of the 513 electors actually appointed." Thus, the Bush team has a good reason for doing what it can to resolve any court suits about Florida voting irregularities as soon as possible. --Politex, 11/10/00
November 10, 2000
THE TIMETABLE

Electoral College Vote Need Not Include Florida

By ADAM CLYMER

Dec. 18, the day that presidential electors are to meet in 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia, may produce a political crisis if Florida's 25 votes are still in dispute. But the crisis will not be constitutional, scholars say, for the Constitution enables a president to be chosen even if a big state like Florida does not vote.

Some commentators have suggested that the election would be thrown to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives if neither Vice President Al Gore nor Gov. George W. Bush of Texas gets a majority of the 538 electors for whom Americans voted on Tuesday.

But the Constitution requires only that a winning candidate have the votes of "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." If Florida's votes are not resolved by then, or if a legal restraining order bars Gov. Jeb Bush from filing a certificate listing Florida's electors, then Mr. Gore has enough votes from other states, if current vote totals stand and if his electors keep their pledges, to reach a majority of the 513 electors actually appointed.

In either of those cases, or if either Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush gets Florida's votes, the House of Representatives would have no role in choosing a president, other than to participate in a Jan. 6 ceremonial counting of the votes in a joint session with the Senate.

The time gaps between actual voting, Electoral College meetings, Congressional certification of votes and an actual inauguration were dictated by bad roads in an era when it took President John Adams 17 days to get to the White House from Boston in 1800.

In fact the four months provided in the coach era were shortened in 1934, the railroad era, but only to 10 weeks. Inauguration Day was moved up from March 4 to Jan. 20 to reduce, though hardly eliminate, the lame- duck period in which an administration either ending voluntarily or rejected by voters continued in power.

In the nation's early decades, the results of a presidential election did not become known for three or four weeks. In the 20th century, the latest when the winner became known was at 11 a.m. on the day after Election Day in 1960. In 1916, however, Charles Evans Hughes went to sleep believing that he had won, and awoke to discover that he had lost California and the election.

The 21st century has beaten that record. Whatever the Florida count is when Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush go to bed tonight, both sides have made it clear that they are not finished.

But there are five weeks for the electors to be "appointed," or, to use an even more arcane term, for governors to issue Certificates of Ascertainment, advising the National Archives and both houses of Congress who was elected in their state.

Those documents, comparable to certificates of election that are issued to advise Congress of the election of its members, must be submitted by Dec. 18, the date set by federal law for the electors to meet.

Walter Dellinger, professor of law at Duke University, said the reason the Constitution requires the votes of only a majority of those electors actually appointed to elect a President was that in the earliest days of the Union a state might neglect to appoint electors, and there was no reason for the process to be held hostage by that omission.

The rules for electors and the role of the House were spelled out in the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. The House has a role only if the ceremonial counting presided over by the vice president shows that no one had a majority of the electoral vote. That could happen either because of a tie between two candidates or a split among three. The House would vote, with each state casting one ballot, for one of the three candidates with the most electoral votes.

That vote, however, would have to amount to a majority of all 50 states. So if 24 states backed one candidate, 21 backed another, and 9 did not vote because their members split, no one would be elected, and the House would keep on voting until someone won.

It is theoretically possible that by tying up the Florida situation in the courts, the Gore campaign could deny the state a voice in the electoral vote. But that would ensure a political backlash and infuriate a Republican Congress.

The only time actual vote counts threw an election in doubt was in 1876, when disputed counts in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina led to party-line votes by a Republican Congress to elect Rutherford B. Hayes. Joel Silbey, professor of history at Cornell University, recalled that Democrats, sure that they had been cheated, threatened to riot outside the Capitol. But their candidate, Gov. Samuel Tilden of New York, insisted that they drop their protest at that point and Mr. Hayes was inaugurated.

Steve Hess, a presidential scholar who has written about President Nixon's decision not to challenge what many Republicans said was fraudulent voting in 1960 in Illinois and Texas, said the decision to forego such a challenge was statesmanlike and essential to Mr. Nixon's eventual election in 1968.

But he said he was getting phone calls from other countries all week asking if there was a constitutional crisis now. He said he told them that Mr. Gore "has an absolute obligation to play out the string, an obligation to his party and his voters." But after the Florida count is completed next week with absentee ballots from abroad, he said, whoever is behind has an obligation to consider the consequences of delay for the country — and for a new president who is already losing time from an orderly transition.

"We can wait for 10 days, for heaven's sake," he said.

And in any case, Professor Dellinger said, "the problem we have is a Florida problem." If the president were elected by a direct popular vote like all other federal officials, he said, a national recount would be required in an election this close. "This is less of a problem than we would have had if we had a nationwide recount," he said. "At least we know the problem is isolated in Florida."