As we continue with our discussion of the 2000 election and the results of court intervention at both the state and federal level, there are some questions that should be answered.

The first question is, “Was President Bush legally elected by the people, including the people of Florida”? The answer is yes. An event happened on November 26, 2000 which sealed the election. According to both the Florida State Constitution and the US Constitution nothing further needed or could be done. The following is what Mark R. Levin says in his book, Men In Black concerning this event:

“On November 26, the deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court passed. Harris’s submission to Governor Jeb Bush was consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision of November 21. Harris was legally obligated to certify the results of the popular vote and submit those results to Governor Bush, which she did. Bush then carried out his legal duty and signed a “certificate of ascertainment” appointing George W. Bush’s slate of electors to the electoral college. He then forwarded the results to the archivist of the United States. At this point, the election was over. (emphasis mine)”

The legal teams, the courts, and the media somehow missed that fact. Consequently, we were subjected to all the legal proceedings and judicial activism that followed.

The second question is, “Did the United States Supreme Court select George W. Bush as President”? The answer is no. The reason for this is clearly indicated by Justice Charles T. Wells of the Florida State Supreme Court, in his dissent in Gore v. Harris on December 8, 2000. Justice Wells wrote the following:

“I want to make it clear at the outset of my separate opinion that I do not question the good faith or honorable intentions of my colleagues in the majority. However, I could not more strongly disagree with their decision to reverse the trial court and prolong this judicial process. I also believe that the majority’s decision cannot withstand the scrutiny which will certainly immediately follow under the United States Constitution.

My succinct conclusion is that the majority’s decision to return this case to the circuit court for a count of the undervotes from either Miami-Dade County or all counties has no foundation in the law of Florida as it existed on November 7, 2000, or at any time until the issuance of this opinion. The majority returns the case to the circuit court for this partial recount of undervotes on the basis of unknown or, at best, ambiguous standards with authority to obtain help from others, the credentials, qualifications, and objectivity of whom are totally unknown. That is but a first glance at the imponderable problems the majority creates.

Importantly to me, I have a deep and abiding concern that the prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis. I have to conclude that there is a real and present likelihood that this constitutional crisis will do substantial damage to our country, our state, and to this Court as an institution.”

Justice Wells knew in advance that the US Supreme Court would have to intervene to over-rule the activism of his colleagues. Our conclusion is that of Mr. Levin’s which is, that Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas could not convince O’Connor and Kennedy to join them on the basis of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, but rather had to invoke the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment for them to sign onto the decision to strike down the Florida Supreme Court. By doing so, they opened the floodgates for all future elections to call upon the Judiciary to intervene anytime a candidate, political party, or individual wants to file suit claiming their rights were violated in the voting process.

So where does that leave us today? First of all, we have to put forth all available energy to see that Constitutional Originalists are appointed and confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. Secondly, we need to urge our elected representatives to take back the authority ursurped over the years by the Supreme Court. Finally, in the meantime, we need to follow the advice in Hugh Hewitt’s book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It, where he advises that conservatives should continuously turn out the maximum number of voters in every election in order to avoid court intervention. If the election is not close, there will be no incentive for the losing party to file a lawsuit which has no chance of over-turning the election for them.

There is so much more information in the pages of “Men In Black”. Purchase a copy today and begin reading it.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 27th, 2005 at 3:10 pm and is filed under Saturday Evening Judicial Review Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Tags: Supreme Court, Judicial Activism, 2000 election, Gore v. Harris