2007-02-04 23:34:41 · 7 answers · asked by shahd_hany2000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
George Walker Bush
2007-02-04 23:40:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton was the last elected president to take office
from
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001218_levine.html
Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
Q: But wait a second. The U.S. Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A: Right.
Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (a two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.
Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the "Gore exception." States have no rights to control their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.
Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Q: What complexities?
A: They didn't say.
Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?
Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.
Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The U.S. Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"
Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.
Q: So if the Florida Supreme Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
Q: If the Florida Supreme Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules? That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they would end up with a possible Gore victory.
2007-02-05 08:00:31 · answer #2 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Moshe Katsav
2007-02-05 07:41:49 · answer #3 · answered by mj 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush.
The previous president was Hillary Clinton
2007-02-05 07:42:48 · answer #4 · answered by duck 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
george w bush
2007-02-09 04:05:14 · answer #5 · answered by SHARMA 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
george walker bush
george w bush
dubya
bush
choose any one
2007-02-05 07:46:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
hit me on my butt
2007-02-05 07:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by nishant s 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋