- Some may consider this article a defense of President
Bush and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It is not. It
is a defense of the U.S. Constitution, which appears to be on its deathbed.
In August of 2000, this writer opined on the Free Republic website that
Gore would be the lesser of two evils in voting for president. The rationale
for that statement was that we know where Gore wants to take the country
(total control by the federal government) and although Bush has the same
goal, he would encounter little opposition from Republicans because he
was perceived as a 'conservative.'
The flaming was immediate and vicious. To this day, little criticism of
Republicans is allowed on that website supposedly dedicated to the constitution
and freedom.
For years the author has been railing against the concept of a ãliving
constitutionä which can be ãreinterpretedä without amending
it, in order to reach a 'desirable' result. No such power has been granted
to the courts (including the SCOTUS). It has been usurped. The implied
power in the supremacy clause is for the court to APPLY the constitution
to the laws (statutes) to determine if they comply with the original intent
and meaning of the constitution as amended.
So brainwashed and dumbed down as to the meaning of the constitution is
the public that the congress, executive and courts have been able to convince
them that emergency powers are not subject to the original constraints
of the constitution.
When the court, in one of its rare instances, follows the original meaning
and intent, the decision is met with derision and contempt. Such was the
case in the decision that decided the presidency in the year 2000.
In the Florida 2000 case the court held (correctly) that the provision
in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (Each State shall appoint
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the
State may be entitled in the Congress:) meant the legislature and not the
state government which would have included the courts and executive. The ruling
therefore said the attempt by the State Supreme Court to change the deadlines
established by the legislature was unconstitutional. That, by the way,
was by a 7-2 vote of the nine justices.
The 5-4 vote was on the question of which of two deadlines (established
by the legislature) should be honored. The question was moot anyway since
both deadlines had passed.
The canard that Bush was "selected" by a 5-4 vote of "conservatives"
is just that, a lie. It was the 7-2 vote that gave Bush Florida's electoral
votes and the presidency.
However, when the exact same issue was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court
in the New Jersey case this year, the court refused to hear an appeal,
in effect upholding the ruling of the State Supreme Court that it had the
authority to override the state law established by the legislature in the
interest of "fairness."
Although a different section of the constitution was involved (senators
not presidents), the issue was identical. Article I, Section 4 reads:
-
- ãThe Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by
the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by Law make or
alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.ä
(The exception for senators was because at that time, before adoption of
the seventeenth amendment, they were chosen by the state legislatures.)
What does all this prove about the SCOTUS? Only that it will use original
intent when it suits its purpose and ignore or trash the constitution when
it doesnât.
The derisive use of such expressions as, 'the selected president' and 'resident
Bush' reflect only on those who use them and mock the constitution and
the Office of the President, not the person himself.
-
- (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)
-
- Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its
entirety.
-
- The author is a freelance writer based in Romulus, Michigan.
He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs
administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.
-
- If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly,
please contact us at jimrarey@comcast.net.
|
