Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (94028)	11/29/2000 2:13:41 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Any objections should have been made at the time Please, have you been in a coma the last several weeks. Objections were raised as soon as Bush's cousin starting calling the election for him on Fox. TP

To: Constant Reader who wrote (94028)	11/29/2000 2:16:09 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769670

SUMMARY OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT Before the U.S. Supreme Court in GEORGE W. BUSH, Petitioner, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, et al., Respondents. 1. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision, which announced a new framework and timetable for resolving controversies over the presidential election results in that State, should be vacated because it does not comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5. a. Responding to a presidential election crisis much like that unfolding in Florida during the past three. weeks, Congress enacted a statutory scheme to imple-ment the constitutional mechanism of the Electoral Col-lege. 3 U.S.C. §§ 1-15. One of those statutes, § 5, pro-vides that state-court resolutions of controversies regard-ing the appointment of presidential electors shall be conclusive only if they are made pursuant to “laws en-acted prior to” election day. b. The court below rejected Florida statutes and deadlines for the appointment of electors and the resolu-tion of presidential election disputes as “hyper-technical.” Instead, it resorted to its “equitable powers” to prescribe new standards and deadlines, suspend man-datory enforcement mechanisms, and curtail the discre-tion conferred on the state executive by the legislature. The decision below constitutes a clear departure from the legal requirements established before election day, and announces new rules governing the resolution of election disputes. The Florida Supreme Court thus con-sciously and boldly overrode Florida’s “laws enacted prior to” election day and replaced them two weeks later with laws of its own invention. c. Title 3 U.S.C. § 5 is designed to ensure that dis-putes relating to the appointment of presidential electors will be decided under laws made prior to the exigency under which they arose. It was enacted by Congress to discourage precisely what has happened in Florida this month, where the candidate who did not receive the most votes in the official tabulation is attempting to change the result by changing the rules. But the plain language of the statute provides that state courts must adhere to preexisting law if their resolution of election controve rsies is to be given binding effect. The court below failed to do so. d. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision should be vacated as a result of its failure to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5. The resulting consequences are two -fold. First, the executive officials in Florida would be able to discharge all of their duties, including their duties imposed by fed- eral law, under the rules in place on election day. Sec-ond, Congress would be able to give conclusive effect to the official certification of the Elections Canvassing Commission regarding the appointment of Florida’s electors made pursuant to the carefully crafted scheme put in place before the election to apply equally to all voters and candidates. Vacating the decision below would thus allow the Electoral College process to reach a lawful, final, and conclusive resolution of the presi-dential election. 2. The Florida Supreme Court, by arrogating to it-self the authority to make new rules applicable to this election contest, also violated Article II of the Constitu-tion, which invests the authority to regulate the manner of appointing presidential electors in state legislatures. a. The Constitution provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint [electors] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 1. His-tory and precedent establish that this power granted to state legislatures is both plenary and exclusive. b. Article II establishes a federally mandated sepa-ration of powers between the state legislature and other branches of state government in the context of choosing presidential electors. The Framers deliberately chose to invest the power to determine the manner of choosing electors in this particular branch of state government, thereby excluding the exercise of such power by the other branches. Any delegation of this constitutional au-thority must be both clear and express. c. The Florida legislature has not granted to the state supreme court the authority to determine the man-ner of choosing electors. On the contrary, the legislature has established a complex and detailed framework for presidential elections, and has granted the executive branch the authority to exercise limited discretion and to certify the results of such elections in accordance with statutorily imposed deadlines. The state court reached out and prohibited the executive branch officials from performing their duties, and announced new deadlines to supplant those enacted by the legislature. The court thus arrogated to itself the power to determine the manner in which Florida’s electors are appointed, authority that the Constitution reposes only in the state legislature. d. The proper remedy for the Florida Supreme Court’s violation of Article II is nullification of its at-tempt to interfere in the manner in which the State’s electors are appointed. The court below had no author-ity under the federal Constitution to announce new rules for this presidential election. Its attempt at judicial leg-islation was unconstitutional, and its actions patently ul-tra vires, and the court’s decision is thus void. As a re-sult, the state executive branch officials should be freed by this Court to carry out their duties without the uncon-stitutional interference of the state supreme court.