Q: Now one thing I never understood: was the count certified by Katherine Harris unconstitutional or was the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court unconstitutional?

A: Both were unconstitutional. Indeed, several justices who disagreed with the Florida Supreme Court recount decision conceded that it was more fair than Harris's count, just not fair enough. One thing's for certain though: under neither count were all the counties treated equally, not by a long shot. Some counties were hand-counted (such as 6 Republican counties, giving Bush 400+ votes); some were not (Miami-Dade comes to mind). Even the optical scanning counties did not count their votes in the same manner. If Lake County, for example, had hand-counted its optical-scan ballots using the exact same method that Orange County used (by counting voters who both filled in the Presidential oval and wrote in their Vice-Presidential choice instead of just discarding their ballots), Gore would have gotten an additional 130 votes.

Q: So neither the Harris-count nor the Florida Supreme Court count were constitutional.

A: Not according to the US Supreme Court.

Q: Was either count legal under Florida law?

A: The Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Florida law, and they rejected the Harris certification as illegal under Florida law. Although their recount was legal under Florida law, it was declared unconstitutional and prevented by the US Supreme Court, who insisted that Florida's law be changed after Election Day.

Q: I thought if Florida's law was changed after Election Day, it was subject to challenge by Congress.

A: Exactly. So since the US Supreme Court changed Florida Law after Election Day, Federal Law REQUIRES Congress to reject the Florida electoral vote.

Q: So you're saying that Florida's votes have NEVER been counted legally, either under Florida law or under the Constitution.

A: I'm not just saying it. Even the Conservative Scalia Five back me up on it. Florida's entire system was rejected as unconstitutional. Thus, Congress must reject Florida's slate.

Q: Isn't the US Supreme Court the final arbiter here?

A: Not at all.

Q: No???

A: No! Article 3, Chapter 1 of the Federal Code makes clear that Congress makes the final decision on electors and the US Supreme Court has no power to change it. Indeed, following the disputed election of 1876, Congress made explicit in legislative history that these political decisions must be made by the political branches of government as required by the Constitution, and NOT by the Supreme Court that acted so politically in 1876 that Rutherford B. Hayes was called His Fraudulency during his weak, one-term Presidency.

CALL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES, TOO
E-MAIL FAXES TO SENATORS AND REPS (It's Easy!)
E-MAIL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
E-MAIL DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES
E-MAIL MEDIA

<< Dear Diva:

Michael Moore said that the best movie to watch to get an idea of how the 2000 Election played out is "Election."  Do you agree?

-Movie Fan in Cyberland >>

Dear Fan:

Absolutely not.  "Election" is a fine film, but for real insight into Coup2K, I recommend you view "Drop Dead Gorgeous."  It is 100%,  absolutely dead-on, a modern "Manchurian Candidate."

-Tammy, "The Diva" and WebMistress of BBBR

The ActivismHQ

E-Mail The Diva

© 2000-2001 gorewon2000.net and coup2k.com. All rights reserved. Permission is given for individuals and non-profit web sites to copy and distribute articles provided herein in their original and unaltered form, provided attribution to this site is included. For-profit or print media seeking rights to publish or reprint content should send inquiries to thediva@coup2k.com
Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes.  See:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml