Jordan Times, Wednesday, July 2, 2003

ALL THINGS considered, the Bush administration is weathering the WMD heat better than it could have hoped. They and their supporters led off with arrogance in Iraq, scoffing at the sturdy cold war concept of deterrence and equating it with appeasement. But when the war turned out looking like Muhammad Ali taking on a grandmother in a wheelchair, and when granny turned out not to be packing dangerous weapons as alleged, the backlash began against a sanctimonious crowd that believed the rest of us were dangerous fools bent on bringing America to ruin.

Still, President George Bush is surviving the controversy better than British Prime Minister Tony Blair is because, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported recently, a third of the American public mistakenly believes the US has already found Iraqi WMDs. And they frankly don't seem to want to spend another minute thinking about it.

It helps prove what some have speculated in the past — that the administration benefits from what psychologists call “projection”. In a stressful time such as this, the public subconsciously projects boldness onto rashness and competence onto foolish behaviour, because to see the leaders' mistakes in the harsh light of reality would spark a mass panic.

Still, the experts and neo-con think-tankers must know, somewhere deep inside, that they've lost permanent credibility among those people who've been paying enough attention to be outraged.

They told us that hard, reliable intelligence showed that it was suicidal to do nothing. If there was any WMD material in Iraq, Baath loyalists and bandits may have beaten us to it, despite our hard, reliable intelligence. It's peace time there, but American troops are still being killed. Baghdad citizens who should have looked forward to a more prosperous time have resorted to acts like raiding the Baghdad zoo for animals to sell or eat. And the United States is less respected than before, even among currently “friendly nations”: over 70 per cent of citizens in Turkey, Russia and Pakistan view the US as a military threat, according the Pew Research Centre.

Yes, we've been warring better than many other nations and most past empires, but we've been failing where our own ideals are concerned, with practical consequences.

The American prowar bunch fancies itself to be the lone realist about what needs to be done to keep the country safe. But look closer and you'll see a flat-out comic-book sentimentalism that drives their assumptions about what works and what doesn't. They aspire to be Captain America, going in, knocking some heads together, making things right and walking away while drawing the awe and respect of the conquered. But even in the make-believe world of comic books, Captain America usually ends up getting more headaches than he bargained for in the next issue.

What many of us said before the war remains true: In coming years, we'll have to fight smarter, not faster or louder. Many current friends will some day be threats, as the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations know from their Frankensteinian creation of Saddam. But we can't assassinate every Frankenstein monster or preempt every nutcase or hammer every hapless citizenry into a liberal Western democracy. We're not rich enough or strong enough to pull that off, nor can we live with the unintended consequences such actions prompt.

Most of us who opposed the war in Iraq weren't championing pacifism. Many of us were actually willing to deter Saddam and others with sincere threats of massive retaliation — which, while horrifying in its own right, is an approach more respected by the international community than preemption.

The shock troops of the far right used terms like “wimp” and “traitor” to describe anyone who disagreed with the invade-now-think-later approach. The less rabid members of the Captain America crowd simply shook their heads at us and shuddered. As they now fix their gaze eastwards of Iraq, towards Iran, the rest of us are shuddering.

The writer is a Pakistani-American book editor based in Los Angeles, California. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

...another name for this crowd of War Supporters - SUCKERS.

And one might well add Blood to that .


BUSH LIED, AND INNOCENTS DIED. It really is that criminal.

Either your brain is a very small sphere or you are being payed to discourage discussion of topics damaging to Bush.

Organize!
Organize!

"BUSH LIED, AND INNOCENTS DIED. It really is that criminal."

but but but... Bush is American. He's defending freedom and justice isn't he?

I am convinced that Circle is just that: PsyOps with the intent of disrupting discussion of topics the Junta's Sycophants can no longer realistically discount and retain any credibility. So, the disruption is going covert. Play on people's minds with little attempts at demoralizing and frustrating.

Actual content = 0.

You can probably expect more of the same to show up in other forms. Be on the lookout for it.

BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED. And they aren't coming back they are dead, and every Sycophant who supports it gives their consent to commit Murder. And Murder most foul it is.

"I am convinced that Circle is just that: PsyOps with the intent of disrupting discussion of topics the Junta's Sycophants can no longer realistically discount and retain any credibility. So, the disruption is going covert. Play on people's minds with little attempts at demoralizing and frustrating."

Organize!
Organize!

In Congress Assembled July 4th 1776:

Declaration of Independence

Introduction in the Words of James Madison
My first entrance on public life was in May, 1776, when I became a member of the Convention in Virginia, which instructed her delegates in Congress to propose the Declaration of Independence. . . It has always been my impression that a re-establishment of the Colonial relations to the parent country previous to the controversy was the real object of every class of people, till despair of obtaining it, and the exasperating effects of the war, and the manner of conducting it, prepared the minds of all for the event declared on the 4th of July, 1776, as preferable, with all its difficulties and perils, to the alternative of submission to a claim of power, at once external, unlimited, irresponsible,and under every temptation to abuse from interest, ambition, and revenge.  James Madison, letter to Jared Sparks, January 5th, 1828

 

Interior of Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
Site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Nothing can be more absurd than the cavil that the Declaration contains known and not new truths. The object was to assert, not to discover truths, and to make them the basis of the Revolutionary act. The merit of the Declaration, therefore, could only consist in a lucid communication of human rights, in a condensed enumeration of the reasons for such an exercise of them, and in a style and tone appropriate to the great occasion, and to the spirit of the American people.  James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1823.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Life is precious to us all on this journey
Inside all of us a love that gives exists
Brevity of life demands we find our inner peace
Everyone must do their part for their fellowman
Remember those who have gone on before
Always caring for others before self
Love that had no beginning and no end
Sharing truth with those around us
Always pressing onward towards tomorrow
Reflecting on the peace we strive onward
Ever inching closer to our goal
Simply wanting a better world for our children
Others may jeer and jest at our motives
Saying things to tear and break us down
Truth cannot be quiet
Upon the mountains and in the valleys we shout
Peace to all and love for all mankind
Inside us all is love’s abounding message
Deliver us all to hope and peace and love.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

This is my favorite part.

Good morning to you, Dio; I don't think this person is the only one who may fall into that category; I have suspicions about a number of them - assuming that most of them are not the same person.

"I have suspicions about a number of them"

Watch out! They're right outside your window! You're nuttier than a truckload of peanut brittle.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Did everyone hear Bush's rant that for all intent and purposes dared the Iraqis to kill more Americans? Thus guaranteeing that they will? This was right after six more marines were injured by a bomb blast. I think he actually said something to the effect of "let them bring it on" (not an exact quote). What a juvenile buffoon. Time to put him back on his dude ranch.

The Cowboy Rant of a Deserter.

"Bring them on." After all neither he nor any of his Cronies Kids are over there. He's "willing to "suffer" the consequences".

The Bravado of a Coward.

Coward! What a coward he is. Real people put words into action. Let's sit around and talk about it.

YES, thats right, the whole pro-war crowd was completely wrong, because this war was a complete failure! Why is it a failure.......uh........UH....(Diogaynes ponders for a while)...because, there are no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was better off with Saddam and I like sucking the burnt decaying penis of Saddam, MMMMM MMMMM, finger licking good!

...recall the words to which the signers of the Declaration of Independence affixed their "John Hancock's to:

"...and to this end we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Quislings such as BA deserve no approbation only opprobrium.

They espouse the most Un-American Anti-Freedom Philosopies this side of the Third Reich.

BA I suspect would have preened mightily in his nice Brown Shirt.

"You cannot conquer a free man. The most you can do is kill him."
Robert Anson Heinlein

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED, AND HE HAS SAVAGED THE NATION'S HONOR.

It is good to see Bush Admirer openly admit on the world wide web that he is a fascist who wants to see people deported on the basis of their anti-war views. You are not telling us anything we didn't know already, though, B.A.
And yes, the failure to find wmds does indeed prove that the pro-war crowd was wrong. Bush and his defenders used the alleged existence of massive numbers of these things and the "threat" they supposedly represented to the US as the justification of invading Iraq. The fact that they are not to be found proves that Bush was a liar and you people were fools and dupes for believing him - or hypocrits for claiming to believe him when you knew he was full of crap.

"he is a fascist who wants to see people deported on the basis of their anti-war views."

That's not a fascist point of view. It's called getting rid of the trash.

But you people have your own definitions. So be it.

"That's not a fascist point of view. It's called getting rid of the trash."

Really? Then what are you doing away from the landfill? Idiot.

"The fact that they are not to be found proves that Bush was a liar and you people were fools and dupes for believing him"

Maybe you're right. Or maybe it proves that the anti-Bush/ appeasemnet crowd successfully stalled the war long enough for the WMD to have been hidden and shared.

Hmmm.

Staying away from trash like you and your kind. Idiot.

You're doing a poor job of it. Much unlike your ilk, I don't live in a landfill OR under a rock. Idiot.

...Nazi's who seem to think that destroying the Constitution and it's prohibitions and potections is Patriotic.

As long as it is happening to somebody else.

Shortsighted stupidity.

A tyrants last victims are his supporters.

If figureitout thinks the Bush Junta cares one whit about the wellbeing and safety of the ordinary citizenry of this country he needs to get off the Prozac and start paying attention.

If you are not outraged you are not paying attention. (Or are incapable of it.)

BUSH IS A LYING SOCIOPATH.

BUSH IS A MASS MURDERER.

BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

The Constitution is under constant attack from the Bush Junta. Bush doesn't care about anyone except himself and his rich friends. He sits in his ivory tower and shapes policy like he received the most electorial college votes or something. Just who does he think he is? We must take action! Let's sit around and discuss this.

...do not supercede the Constitution.

You are an Idiot.

We are idiots. However, we will sit down and talk about it. Then, we will hit the bong.

with its mindless cut and paste. You're running on empty, Adolph.

Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice- President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President - some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was simply impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

Though the term is never used in the Constitution itself, the electors that choose the President at each election are traditionally called a College. In the context of the Constitution, the meaning of college is not that of a school, but of a group of people organized toward a common goal.

The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read "George Bush" or "Al Gore," you're really voting for "John Smith" who is a Bush supporter or "Jack Jones" who is a Gore supporter.

The function and details of how the Electoral College meets and how they vote was changed in the 12th Amendment. First, a discussion of the original plan, outlined in Article 2, Section 2, Clauses 2 and 3, then what is different today:

Each state chose a number of electors equal to the number of congress people that state had. Each state, then, got at least three electors (two Senators and at least one Representative). Electors may not be an employee or elected representative of the Federal Government. Each state was allowed to otherwise choose whomever they wish to be the Electors for that state.

Today, Electors are chosen by popular election, but the Constitution does not mandate a popular election. The 14th Amendment does mention the choosing of Electors, but is relevant only when Electors are elected by popular vote. There is similar mention in the 24th Amendment. In other words, Electors could be appointed by a state's legislature, or the legislature could empower the governor to choose electors. In some cases, state law allows for such appointments if the popular vote cannot be used to determine a winner, such as if election results are contested up to federally-mandated deadlines.

Regardless of the method used to choose Electors, they all met, in their states, on one day set by law. Each voted for two people, at least one of whom was not a citizen of their state. Those votes were then counted, and a list of each name and the number of votes was signed and certified and sent to the President of the Senate. Then, in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate opened the vote counts from each state. These were totaled, and the President was the person with the most votes, if the count is a majority. If there was a tie, then the members of the House of Representatives immediately took a vote and that winner was the President.

If there was no tie, and no majority, then the top five vote-getters were voted on by the House as above.

When the vote devolved to the House, two-thirds of all states must have had at least one Representative present for the vote to proceed. The Representatives present from each state voted as a single state. The winner had to win by a majority of the states.

The Vice-President was a bit easier. In any case, that person who had the second highest number of Electoral votes was Vice-President (if there was a tie, the winner of the House vote was President; the loser was Vice-President). If the second-highest vote count was shared by two or more people, the Senate chose between those people.

Pretty complicated, right? The Framers thought for sure that they had covered all their bases. But they did not foresee certain things, the most important of which is the formation of political parties. For example, say each state votes Republican, and every elector votes for George Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice-President. When the votes are counted, Bush and Cheney will have equal votes, throwing the election into the House, regardless of the fact that the will of the Electors is, or should be, clear. Once in the House, anything can happen.

Not plausible, you might think, but precisely this happened in the 1800 election of the Jefferson/Burr ticket. The ticket had the highest number of Electoral votes, and because their electors wrote both Jefferson and Burr on their ballots, there was a tie. The House was thrown into a fit, and it took 36 votes to finally elect Jefferson as President.

The 12th Amendment was ratified four years later to avert any recurrence of these events. The 12th changes the Electoral process in a few small, but important ways.

First, instead of voting for two people, Electors vote for a President and a Vice-President. From there, the names are totaled at the state level, in two columns this time (one for the President and one for the Vice President), and sent along to the President of the Senate. Then, in joint session, all votes are opened and counted, again in two columns. The person with the majority of votes for President is then President. If there is no majority, then the top three vote-getters are voted on by the House (with the same restrictions as before). The choice must be made by January 20th (originally March 4th in the 12th Amendment, but altered by the 20th Amendment), or the Vice President becomes the Acting President, until such time as the House can finally agree.

The choice for Vice President moves along similarly, with the majority vote getter becoming VP. If there is no majority, the top two vote-getters are voted on by the Senate. In the case of the Senate, the Senators are not grouped by state, though there must still be a two-thirds quorum to take the vote. Also note that because only the top two vote-getters are placed in the mix, the choice for Vice President should be an easier one. Also note that in the case of a tie, the current Vice President, as President of the Senate, may cast a vote for himself (if the current Vice President is running for re-election).

Today, the day of choosing the electors is set at the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and the date the Electors meet is set at the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December - in 2000, these dates are November 7 and December 18. These dates are set in the US Code, at 3 USC 7.

In most states, the winner of the state election gets all of the state's electoral votes. In two states, Maine and Nebraska, however, the winner of the state only gets two votes, one representing each Senator. The other electoral votes are distributed according to the winner of each congressional district in the state.

That's the process. Electors are chosen by the states and the Electors elect the President and Vice-President.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

"more human garbage with its mindless cut and paste. You're running on empty, Adolph."

I'm running on empty. Good. Then don't let what I do bother you. All of you, just ignore what I'm doing . I'm not worth paying attention to. Just let me do my thing and ignore it if it doesn't bother you. Anyways, I'm running on empty. So, don't comment on my comments.

What does any of the above posts have to do with the supreme
court appointing the president?

What does any of the above posts have to do with the original article?

Oh, you mean the electoral college stuff. That's in reply to this completely idiotic statement by one completely idiotic poster:

"The "most electoral votes"...
by Diogenes • Saturday July 05, 2003 02:10 PM
...do not supercede the Constitution.
You are an Idiot."

Because, you see, since 1804, how Presidents and VP's are elected by the electoral college been one of the Articles of the Constitution.

That's all.

So the president was appointed absent of any pre-existing
constitional authority.

A liberal who can't think. You're right at home here at LA-IMC. Welcome. Stay a while.

The Electoral College cast their votes in 2000 just like they have for a couple of hundred years now. Bush won.

A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN
BUSH V. GORE by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.


Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the
most votes.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any
legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices
agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate
number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the
voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that
the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state
university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is
prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business
telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal
government use the equal protection clause to force states to take
measures to stop violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state
elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This
decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?
A: They don't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be
counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the
election after it was held." Right? A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court
made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the
election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court
to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote
is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's
law after the election.
A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for
determining what is a legal vote"

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
been overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned
for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the
rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did,
legal votes could never be counted.
A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some
counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems.
Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties
record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely
Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So
approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity"
was not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more
than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got
his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age
home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind
about Hitler.

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats
(largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that
somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined
under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law
and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent
of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.

Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the
votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?

A: Nope.

Q: Why not?
A: No time.

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree
the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted
until January 4.

Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
results.

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
Court?
A: Nothing.

Q: But I thought ---
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its
work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United
States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by
forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not
binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes
counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the
recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore,
hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one
candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before
determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to
be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won
Florida.
A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such
counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and
Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a
cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm
"democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't
accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this
reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the
five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the
votes?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is
not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on
December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.

Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it
sets for other courts.

Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob
in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the
US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.

Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.

Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?
A: Yes

Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard
that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in
Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the
US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won
the election there, right?
A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the
butterfly ballot errors).

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count
all ballots under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism!
Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is
collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush
administration.

Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have
been affirmed.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
(December 9 stay stopping the recount), and
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf (December 12
final opinion)

Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our
Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's
second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in
the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.

Q: Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It
takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic
Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not
approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be
democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end... and
one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.

Q: What do I do now?
A: E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator,
reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes
(three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that
VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by
counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will
of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004
when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm

The question is did or did not the State of Florida send their representatives to vote for President as Article 12 of the Constitution said that they should? They did.

Some idiot said the electorial college was not Constitutional. it's Article 12 and has been there since 1804. Educate yourself if possible. Read every so often. Think!

There had to be one statewide standard of determining what was a vote and what wasn't a vote. When handcounting votes, different counties were using different methods to determine what was a vote and what was not. That violated the Constitution of the State of Florida.

If you are not a resident of the State of Florida, as I am, then any decision by the Supreme Court having to do with the State of Florida and its laws is none of your business. We, the citizens of the State of Florida, delivered our Representatives to the Electoral College. They voted Bush. End of story.

SURE they did. Just tell that to the scrubbed voters
who committed crimes in the future or had names similar
to people who committed crimes in the future. Most of
which were black.
Let get over it... our votes are 'optional' just as
any banana republic.

>...and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.

Conservatism IS the implementation of the "rule of law". Liberalism is the implementation of activism from the bench.

For an example of activism from the bench, See:

Roe vs. Wade

The decision of whether or not abortion should be legal was NOT left up to the people of the United States. We did not get to go to the polls and vote on this issue. It was handed down as law. There was a reason the pro-abortion crowd did NOT want the people of the US to vote abortion up or down. Are you able to understand why?

- There was a reason the pro-abortion crowd
did NOT want the people of the US to vote abortion up or down. Are you able to understand why? -

No I don't. The last time I saw the stats, a majority
here ( United States) are pro choice.

"Just tell that to the scrubbed voters who committed crimes in the future or had names similar to people who committed crimes in the future. Most of which were black."

They need to talk to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLLSTERS who run the counties where these supposed votes were not counted or they were turned away.

>....our votes are 'optional' just as
any banana republic.

Your opinion is yours. I disagree. Are you able to handle someone disagreeing with you and not hurl insults?

"The last time I saw the stats, a majority
here ( United States) are pro choice."

How about 1973?

They didn't want the vote because they would have lost.

They need to talk to Kathren Harris who had the votes scrubed. Greg Pallist did a nice breakdown in
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
ChoicePoint anyone?

"They need to talk to Kathren Harris who had the votes scrubed. Greg Pallist did a nice breakdown in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

I don't buy and read books having to do with leftist or anarchist dribble anymore, which would be any book ever written by a leftist or an anarchist. Every one I ever read was packed full of lies. Every one that has ever been written is packed full of lies. Every one that will ever be written is packed full of lies. That's what leftists and anarchists do: Lie.

The Dems fucked themselves over, once again.

George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States of America.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

If you look at the Clinton Presidency you get the picture -> A liar as President who employed paid liars to spin the news media (Lanny Davis, James Carville, etc.).

The Bush Administration is a complete turnaround. He hasn't sold out to any foreign governments or rented out the Lincoln Bedroom. His wife didn't lose her Whitewater billing records because she never was involved in such lowlife activity. His cabinet members didn't resign in disgrace because he selected competent people with integrity (unlike Bill Clinton who loaded up with scumbags).

Most importantly, he isn't owned and operated by organized labor, which in turn is controlled by the Mafia, as was Bill Clinton.

neither one of you read anything but Ann Coulter.
figures.

The Parasite signing themselves “Constitution” should learn to read. Idiot. What I said is “the most Electoral Votes do not supercede the Constitution”. And they do not the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. When the Bush Junta with their Police State Tactics, illegal detention without Trial or Counsel for example” attempt to ignore the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution it is irrelevant how many electoral votes, or stolen elections, have gone by the way. The Constitution is quite clear. It is after all written in simple declarative English imbecile.

At no point in my short post did I question the the legitimacy of the Electoral College. The context of the comment should be quite clear if you had read the preceding exchanges in the Thread.

Nice work dio.

Keep it up.

.

wha........WHAT?! Electoral college, MAN, why didnt they teach me this in college, man, im so stupid, i think ill go start a protest against bush again

"What I said is “the most Electoral Votes do not supercede the Constitution”.

As long as you understand that President Bush is the duly elected President of the United States Of America based upon having received the plurality of votes by the Electoral College per Article 12 of the Constitution of the United States Of America, then I'm glad to have aided in your education.

You mean the plurality of [counted] votes.
Not the plurality of legal citizens allow to have their votes counted.

Well Sheepdog, since you're still whining over the fact that your boy Al Gore lost the last Presidential election, I'd suggest that you nominate him again and have another go at it.

I'm sure GWB would quake in his boots at the thought of having to face Al Gore in the next election ;-)

..."Quake in his Boots". Cowards die a thousand deaths. I am sure his shadows are chasing him as we speak. I saw, unsubstantiated, that he is on anti-depressants. That's a great indicator of his stability and fitness for office. Given the long term damage they do I think we can only expect this puppy to get sicker.

"I saw, unsubstantiated, that he is on anti-depressants."

substantiated unsubstantiated allegation.

see "This is how Rumours Get Started"

Your entire statement has violated.
logical fallacie.
Appeal to authority.
You claim to be a "debate coach" ?
So what?

You you know how stupid you look to everyone?
You rant like you are intellegent, yet you arent.
You exploit mindless rhetoric to all and claim that you
have the right views.
Unreal.

wow
jkl;=God
wow