Posted on 02/26/2004 4:07:35 AM PST by HankReardon
With the national election approaching, I'd like to be better informed about what happened in Florida 2000. Right now my view is that the Florida Supreme Court in a rogue act agreed to allow the changing of election rules after the election to attempt to enable the Democrats to count as votes improperly cast ballots. The Gore campaign blatantly choose to recount in the most predominately Democrat counties where their chances of manipulation was best. For the U.S. Supreme Court not to have stepped in and overruled the Florida Supremes and stop the goings on would have been neglect of duty. Seems very obvious to me but since many people stubbornly insist the President was "selected not elected" what is the objective, non-bias history of the events of the Florida election 2000.
I'd also add that the case was, unfortunately, wrongly decided (as to it's basis, not outcome). The core conservatives -- Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas -- wanted to decide the case on Article II of the Constitution, regarding the selection of Presidential electors:
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative
The Florida Supreme Court had, in effect, blatantly rewritten the clear and unambiguous Florida election law -- the "manner" in which the state legislature had "directed" electors to be appointed -- changing specific dates and procedures regarding the challenge/contest (county election commission directed versus court mediated) phases for elections disputes, and the specific certification date. This was a clear and direct violation of Article II. In addition, federal election law clarifies that elections must be decided strictly on the basis of law in place at the time the vote occurred. You can't go back and change the rules ex post facto.
We would now be much better protected against future election stealing gambits of the type habitually practiced by Democrats if Bush v. Gore had been decided on this basis, but tragically Rehnquist could not assemble a majority on these grounds, which were too straightforward for the liberals and "moderates" on the court. Instead Rehnquist had to cobble together a majority on the basis of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sadly this passes over the key Constitutional violation committed by the Florida Supreme Court, instead obsessing obscurely about the entirely subsidiary means it employed in effecting the violation. In so doing, Bush v. Gore not only failed to preclude future violations of Article II by state courts, it even opens new possibilities for justifying such violations! For instance a State Court could hold that election law in place at the time of a Presidential election somehow violated "equal protection" -- easily done considering the woolly and open-ended interpretations to which the standards is prone -- and thereby effectively modify the law on the basis of Bush v. Gore.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON WE NEED MORE UNMUDDLED, ORIGINAL INTENT COSERVATIVES ON THE SCOTUS!!!
Interesting analysis, and counterpoint to my contention (see above) the the basis on which the case was decided has actually opened up new possiblities for future offenses along the lines of Floriduh 2K.
By Golly, you're right!!!
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Regarding the first clause, the Sore Loserman dead-enders claim that Bush was not "elected" in 2000, and yet regarding the second clause, no "other person was elected" (by the electoral college) for that term.
Bush is eligible (cite Michael Moore v. America)!
If you really believe this, then your course of action is clear. IGNORE THE THREAD. Your obsessive pissing and moaning about it is merely helping to "bump" the thread "back to the top," and thereby exposing more of your fellow freepers to this alleged "waste of bandwidth."
Now, in confidence that your view is sincere, and we can expect that you will leave the thread to those of us who consider this issue timely and relevant because the 'Rats will clearly try to steal the election again at the slightest opportunity.
Buh-Bye.
Or, to put it another way... Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Like others on this thread, I have learned/remembered much about what happened back then to be used as ammunition in the continuing attacks from the left about Florida. This thread gathered the salient points and some of the great FR analysis together in one place instead of the hundreds of HUGE threads from the period, let alone the myriad books that it would cost money and take a long time to read and analyze. This thread HAS been valuable and is FAR from a waste of bandwidth.
IMHO
Hank Reardon’s question gives me a chance to summarize my study on this question, which has been substantial.
THE ONE PARAGRAPH SUMMARY
1. Florida was excruciatingly close. Both sides have all kinds of “coulda should wouldas” that should all be disregarded.
2. By any reasonable measure of the pre-existing rules for casting and counting ballots, Bush got more legal votes that got into the ballot boxes in Florida.
3. It is quite probable that more people left the voting booths in Florida thinking that they had voted for Gore, but that doesn’t matter.
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.