[Am-info] Re: questions of 'integrity'

[Mitch Stone]

--- From a message sent by John J. Urbaniak on 11/11/01 2:21 PM ---

>If Gore and the Democrats would have asked for a full state-wide recount
>immediately, the US Supreme Court would not have ruled the way they did.
>
>Instead, Gore tried to recount *only* the counties where he thought he had
>the advantage.
>
>The Supremes had no choice but to rule against that.
>
>Besides, the US Constitution was on Bush's side two ways:
>
>1.  It gives the Florida legislature (Republican majority) the option to
>choose its electors,
>
>2.  As a last resort, it gives the newly-elected US House (Republican
>majority) the option to choose the President, however, in that case, it also
>gives the Senate the option to choose the VP.  Gore, as current VP (until Jan
>20, 2001) would have been able to cast a tie-breaker if the Senate
>deadlocked.
>
>So, no matter what, Bush would still be the Pres.  Lieberman might have been
>VP.

You're arguing the politics and strategy of the election and the 
unprecedented debacle that followed, on the assumption (I think) that I 
care primarily about who came out on top. This is not my main concern.

I agree with you under point (1) -- the Florida Legislature had the power 
to choose the state's electors. They probably should have done so. I also 
agree with you on point (2). The Constitution called for Congress to 
decide if the State of Florida failed. They should have been given the 
opportunity to do so.

Instead, the Supreme Court decided to insert its dubious wisdom into the 
process. They tailored their decision around the twisted logic that the 
way Florida recounted its votes was a failure of equal protection, but 
that the way they were cast and counted in the first place was not. So 
the court appointed a president. We have political institutions and a 
Constitution to prevent such occurrences, but five members of Supreme 
Court decided that they were above all that.

 Mitch Stone  
 mitch@accidentalexpert.com