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: gao seng who wrote (99556)	12/3/2000 4:15:42 PM
From: sunshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

gao seng, give me a quick constitutional law refresher... under what circumstances is it proper for them to make new law... "-- I think there is no question FSCC made law, and it appears to me the USSC isn't considering that, just the fact that they ignored the federal Constitution in making their new deadline."

To: gao seng who wrote (99556)	12/3/2000 4:57:55 PM
From: Ellen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

> But when Tribe rose to defend the Florida Supreme Court, Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist challenged him with a different argument. he liberal state judges went wrong, they said, by invoking their own state constitution to void clear election rules set by the state Legislature. Article II of the U.S. Constitution says state lawmakers have complete power to set the rules for presidential elections, they said. It is "a real problem, it seems to me, under Article II," Scalia said, if the state judges rewrite the rules for choosing presidential electors. < Okay, my understanding was that the FlSC didn't void election rules per se, but that they were asked to, and did, interpret between two conflicting statutes. According to the constitution of the state of Florida, it seems they had that right. ?? leg.state.fl.us ARTICLE V JUDICIARY SECTION 3. Supreme court.-- (b) JURISDICTION.--The supreme court: (1) Shall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty and from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution. I left out #2, as it dealt with bonds or certificates of indebtedness and action of statewide agencies relating to rates or service of utilities providing electric, gas, or telephone service. (3) May review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that expressly construes a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law. (4) May review any decision of a district court of appeal that passes upon a question certified by it to be of great public importance, or that is certified by it to be in direct conflict with a decision of another district court of appeal. (5) May review any order or judgment of a trial court certified by the district court of appeal in which an appeal is pending to be of great public importance, or to have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state, and certified to require immediate resolution by the supreme court. (6) May review a question of law certified by the Supreme Court of the United States or a United States Court of Appeals which is determinative of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme court of Florida. (7) May issue writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction. (8) May issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto to state officers and state agencies. (9) May, or any justice may, issue writs of habeas corpus returnable before the supreme court or any justice, a district court of appeal or any judge thereof, or any circuit judge. (10) Shall, when requested by the attorney general pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV, render an advisory opinion of the justices, addressing issues as provided by general law. ----- [ARTICLE IV EXECUTIVE SECTION 10. Attorney General.--The attorney general shall, as directed by general law, request the opinion of the justices of the supreme court as to the validity of any initiative petition circulated pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI. The justices shall, subject to their rules of procedure, permit interested persons to be heard on the questions presented and shall render their written opinion expeditiously. History.--Added, H.J.R. 71, 1986; adopted 1986.]