It is also a fact that the majority Justices voting for the stoppage had been previously longstanding and outspoken opponents of Federal interference in States affairs, but for some reason (none expressed in the opinion) they felt impelled to intervene in the Florida case. Odd. And btw never repeated by any of them since.
The second paragraph of Article II, Section 1 reads:
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, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The third paragraph of this section was superceded by the XIIth amendment, ratified in June, 1805, which reads, in part:
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.
The portions of that amendment which i have not posted here are not concerned with the process of choosing electors in the several states. There was no constitutional authority and no precedent for the interference of the Supremes in Florida in 2000, and a strong argument could be made that interferring in that State's certification of the vote is a violation of paragraph two, Section 1, Article II. Obviously, people disagree on this matter--it is clear, however, that the constitution regards this as a state's affair.
Obviously, people disagree on this matter--it is clear, however, that the constitution regards this as a state's affair.
Constituionally, the Federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter of how states count electoral votes, apart from assuring the Voting Rights Act is applied.
No, your case is not closed. There is no mention in the constitution of the Supremes having any role in interpreting the constitution. That is an authority based upon precedential custom arising from Mr. Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You have quoted the relevant portion of the constitution which i posted, and attempted to claim that somehow the case against a state determining how electoral votes are counted is closed, despite the specific text: "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." Therefore, a state clearly follows the constitution in directing the manner in which electors are appointed. You have no case for asserting that the Supremes have authority in this matter from the constitution. Their authority is based, at a stretch, upon the claims made by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. There are literally hundreds of legal and constitutional scholars in this country who would assert that the Supremes have no such authority, and who would consider your claims ludicrous.
Before you post statements about the constitution, it would help if you read it.
Setanta wrote:No, your case is not closed. There is no mention in the constitution of the Supremes having any role in interpreting the constitution. That is an authority based upon precedential custom arising from Mr. Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You have quoted the relevant portion of the constitution which i posted, and attempted to claim that somehow the case against a state determining how electoral votes are counted is closed, despite the specific text: "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." Therefore, a state clearly follows the constitution in directing the manner in which electors are appointed. You have no case for asserting that the Supremes have authority in this matter from the constitution. Their authority is based, at a stretch, upon the claims made by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. There are literally hundreds of legal and constitutional scholars in this country who would assert that the Supremes have no such authority, and who would consider your claims ludicrous.
Before you post statements about the constitution, it would help if you read it.
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, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Yup, and the Florida Legislature did just that.
You will note it says nothing about the judicial branch of a state dictating the manner of selecting electors.
And the USSC did NOT change any law in Florida that would constitute interference with the provision of the Constitution cited.
As I said, case closed.
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a different perspective with their head up their ass. Somewhat more appropriate don't you think?
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
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.
...
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
...
Quote:Quietly Florida Admits 2000 Election Fraud
By The Associated Press
April 26, 2002 | Filed at 10:17 p.m. ET
MIAMI (AP) -- A federal judge has approved a settlement between Leon County and civil rights groups that sued over widespread voting problems in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
The state and six other counties remain in the case brought by the NAACP and four other groups who sued in a dispute that grew out of the long-uncertain results of Florida's vote for president.
"There was nothing they were seeking that was impossible to achieve," Ion Sancho, Leon County supervisor of elections, said Friday. "I've been a proponent of settlement from the moment the lawsuit was filed."
Thomasina Williams, one of the attorneys for voters, said settlement talks are under way with other counties, and she was optimistic that some will follow Leon's move. Trial is set for Aug. 26.
State lawmakers changed election laws in response to complaints after the 2000 election, but critics said the changes didn't go far enough.
In the biggest departure from current procedures, Leon agreed to give a written explanation to voters whose ballots are rejected. The idea to make that a state standard was discarded by the Legislature.
The groups that sued agreed that the settlement "achieves some if not all of the relief" they could have obtained at trial, according to the court order dropping Leon from the lawsuit last week.
The county agreed to address disputes over voting, voter registration and voting lists and will meet with community groups to boost registration, with special efforts targeting minorities and college students. Sancho said he was doing all of that before.
Many voters said their votes didn't count or they were turned away from polls due to mistakes on voter lists, busy telephone lines at election headquarters, punch-card voting machine foul-ups and other problems.
Statewide, the largest numbers of voting problems were found in precincts with high proportions of black and elderly voters.
Under the settlement, both sides will work to restore voters who were wrongly removed from voters lists in the 2000 election. Many law-abiding voters across the state said their names were dropped because they were mistakenly pegged as ex-cons, who generally aren't allowed to vote in Florida.
The county also agreed to improve communication and training for staffers who work on election day.
Leon County includes the state capital of Tallahassee.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
...
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
What have you to say about election fraud!?!
Case ignored.
This thread is entitled "The US, the UN and the Iraqis themselves" and in my view is not improved by wrangling about US domestic politics.
However, as far as foreign policy goes, if Kerry takes over this is most definitely an "I wouldn't like to start from here" problem. Bush would be handing him a crock of sh1t. American foreign policy is in its worst state for 100 years, probably ever.
This week, we learn that Karl Rove has told Michael Howard, the conservative leader in Britain, not to come to America because of his opposition to Tony Blair. Just as a small example.
Gelisgesti wrote:I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a different perspective with their head up their ass. Somewhat more appropriate don't you think?![]()
That's true too! If you find that more appropriate, then you should continue to maintain that posture. However, in the off-chance you may in future prefer to seek more light, come join me at 45,000 feet. :wink:
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Quote:Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."
Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."