We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Constitutional Limits of the Supreme Court

by Edward Baumer Monday, Dec. 11, 2000 at 5:18 AM

As a Constitutional scholar I became curious to see what role the Supreme Court would play in this election. I was stunned by the Court's activism in its recent decision to halt the manual recount of votes in Florida, so I decided to check up on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to rule on political disputes. What I found was an obscure decision from 1849, in the case of Luther v. Borden.

-------------------------------

_Guarantee_Clause_of_the_Constitution_

Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

-------------------------------

_Luther_v._Borden_

Luther v. Borden (1849) established that the Guarantee Clause was something that was not to be reviewed; Baker established the test for whether something is justiciable (political):

1). A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to the politicial branches (says expressly in constitution);

2). Lack of manageable standards for judicial resolution;

3). A need for finality in the action of the political branches;

4). Difficulty or impossibility of devising effective judicial remedies

i.. examples of controversies that are non-justiciable - cases concerning war or foreign affairs; matters concerning the structure and organization of the political institutions of the States; cases involving Negro disenfranchisement; abstract questions of political power, sovereignty, of government

----------------------------------

Let's put the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision on the manual recount to the test set in Baker to determine if it is justiciable, and therefore a political decision which the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on...

1)Is the issue at hand (of election procedures) an issue to be decided by political branches?

YES, the Constitution grants the State Legislature the authority to establish the rules of elections, and ultimately it is the canvassing boards of those counties which decide whether or not to recount. Neither the State Legislature of Florida nor the Supreme Court of the United States may overrule that right after the fact.

2)Does the issue at hand demonstrate a lack of manageable standards for judicial resolution?

It would seem so. This issue is unique in our history, and because of its unique nature, no standards have yet been devised to resolve the issue.

3)Does the issue at hand require a need for finality in the action of the political branches?

YES, in disputed elections such as this, where the issue is so close, the need for scrutiny (i.e. recounting ballots) becomes paramount as it is a political decision. The Constitution clearly calls for finality of elections in the Electoral College or in the Congress, if it comes to that.

4)Does the issue at hand demonstrate a difficulty or impossibility of devising effective judicial remedies?

YES, certainly. If the Supreme Court orders an injunction against manual recounts (it has), than its options become either to, in effect, nullify votes (disenfranchising thousands) or to restart the hand recount at such a late date that the outcome will be void due to the deadline restraints set before the Electoral College.

By the test set forward above, the issue at hand regarding the Florida recounts as ordered by the canvassing boards of the various counties falls under the definition of a justiciable or political matter, over which the Supreme Court has no authority of review.

Indeed, the only matter it would seem that they do hold the right of judicial review over is the issue of African-American voter disenfranchisement in Florida, an issue that is specifically declared in case law and in the Constitution itself!

Conclusion: the Supreme Court of the United States, in ordering an injunction against the manual recount of votes in certain Florida counties overstepped its Constitutional authority and based its decision on political grounds, interfering in what is in essence a political matter where it has no jurisdiction.

Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy