Were procs. outlined in US Constitution followed re: contested Pres. elections in 2K? USSC supposed to decide?

Question

Were procedures outlined in US Constitution followed regarding contested presidential. elections in the year 2000? Was the United States Supreme Court supposed to be the decision makers as to who became US president?

Answer 1

No. The presumption of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution was that all votes would be counted. It was pretty clear-cut to them. How could they have foreseen our modern-day conundrum of massive numbers of disenfranchised poor and black voters, psychological warfare in the form of heavy police presence at black polling places, the infamous "butterfly ballot", and the intervention of the brother of one of the major-party's candidate? The final insult to all this was the ruling that the Supreme Court founded: That this case could not EVER serve as a precedent for any other lawsuit! The reason: They knew before they took the case that they were doing something unethical and morally wrong, otherwise, they would have taken the stand that ALL the votes should be counted. Read Alan Derschowitz's book "Supreme Injustice". He outlines and describes, step by step, blow by blow, of the entire case from beginning to end. It is easy to understand and is well-written.

Answer 2

I not only agree with the above (and I voted for Bush in 2000; I was a very loyable Republican until the recent past) but I'd also add the Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Betrayal of America" is also an excellent critique of the Supreme Dictator's ruling. To wit:

"[I]f the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, 'We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted'? Isn't this exactly what the Court did? ...
"The Court majority ... actually wrote that their ruling was intended to preserve 'the fundamental right' to vote. This elevates audacity to symphonic and operatic levels. The Court went on to say, after stealing the election from the American people, 'None are more conscious of the vital limits on its judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people.' Can you imagine that? As they say, 'It's enough to drive you to drink.' "

And, ....

"The simple fact is that the five conservative Justices did not have a judicial leg to stand on in their blatantly partisan decision. ...
"If the Court majority had been truly concerned about the equal protection of all voters, the real equal protection violation, of course, took place when they cut off the counting of the undervotes. ..."

And, ....

"Most Republicans throughout the nation have had a quick response to the claim by Democrats that the U.S. Supreme Court, seven out of nine of whose members are Republican, stole the election for Bush. What about the Florida Supreme Court?they say. They (six out of seven are Democrats) were trying to steal it for Gore. But in the first place, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no evidence that the Florida Supreme Court based its decisions on anything but solid and enduring legal principles. Therefore, there was no indication that they were attempting to help Gore at Bush's expense. But even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that the Florida Supreme Court was out to help Gore and they did so by deliberately bending and distorting the law the way we know the U.S. Supreme Court did to help Bush, there would still be an enormous difference between the two courts. ... I say that because there's absolutely nothing that the Florida court did that is reflective of criminal intent. You don't steal an election by wanting all valid votes to be counted. The Florida Supreme Court wanted all valid votes to be counted. The U.S. Supreme Court wanted valid votes not to be counted. When you seperate the wheat from the chaff and look at the inherent morality, or lack thereof, of the two courts, there is no comparison."

Answer 3

The fact of the matter is Democrats wanted to keep on counting the votes in FL until they got a result they liked. And the Democrats also have a history of playing dirty pool when it comes to elections. What about the shenanigans that gave JFK the presidency over Richard Nixon in 1960? How about all the voters in the western tip of FL (in the Central Time zone) who were basically denied a chance to vote when the networks called the state for Gore when their polling places were still open? I don't think either party can claim the moral high ground on this one.

Answer 4

We right here interior the united states nonetheless have a Democratic Republic . yet as Benjamine Franklin mentioned whilst he grow to be asked by potential of a woman "Sir, WHAT DID YOIU provide US?, and his respond grow to be we've GIVEN YOU A REPUBLIC MAM, in case you could shop IT".That respond from Benjamine Franklin grow to be very genuine and honest it is and constantly has been as much as We the individuals to maintain or for this reason restoration our Democratic Republic to that is origional Constitutional prestige, and root out all the corruption we presently have in the two the Republican social gathering and the Democratic Socialists social gathering Of u.s. because it is observed as now a days. it constantly has been our accountability and our accountability to maintain a watchful eye on our government representatives, yet regrettably for the previous quite a few many years We the individuals fell asleep on the activity which you will desire to talk and corruption and the Progressives began to regulate our government lower back interior the 1920's with Woodrow Wilson and the innovative era ,and that they have got been transforming into their circulate ever considering the fact that. those progressives are the very human beings we would desire to root out as a fashion to return this u . s . to a Constitutional Republic. Auston J. you seem to think of that Obama grow to be born on American soil, the place is your evidence? Do you have or have you ever considered some thing that the the remainder of the rustic hasn't? that pretend, fraudulent COLB that he confirmed the U.S. from Hawaii shows no Dr. Signature, No scientific institution call, No fathers call, No mothers call, No top, No Weight, No childs length, not something of substance, this is fullyyt a COLB and would not additionally be criminal for the familiar citizen to apply to get a drivers license. all and dissimilar interior the international can get a COLB from Hawaii, so for sure that evidence, if that's what you're bearing on, isn't worth that is weight in paper so a approaches as evidence is worried.