Three political questions in search of three astute answers

[Samantha]

Question 1: Why is it more important to count the votes of the active military than veterans? Much was made about the possible discounting of the military vote in Florida during Election 2000. It truly became a hot-button issue, and I was reminded of it once again tonight listening to Hardball. The rules have changed to allow for an extended receipt date for votes of the active military. The question of postmarks was once again discussed. During the controversial 2000 election, what Democrat stood up and asked former Secretary of State Harris and Governor Jeb Bush in all good conscience how they could disenfranchise all of the veterans residing in Palm Beach County? As you might recall, Harris publicly refused to allow the continued counting and submission of the tally until the next day, as was within her discretion to do. In that process, how many veterans were disenfranchised and why did no one, particularly the Democrats, raise holy hell? Isn't it just as politically volatile to disenfranchise one who has fought for this Country as one who fights today?

How many votes of veterans did the Supreme Court negate when it rendered its infamous Opinion of the Court? Do we have any idea? Did any one care? If you are a Democratic veteran who voted for Gore during Election 2000 and the Supreme Court five negated your vote, will you step out in the face of any controversy and demand your vote carry the same weight, if you will, "Equal Protection" as all active military votes? Why should it not?

Chris Matthews declared this issue is so politically hot no one will touch it. Why not? Why should this Republic bend over backwards to give every consideration to the vote of the active military, even those "faxed in" at the last moment yet not hesitate to disenfranchise thousands, if not millions, of those who have served in the past? Isn't that the height of political hypocrisy?

Question 2: Why do we the people not impeach Senators and Congressmen who do not represent our best interests? Why do we sit by when issues such as payment for overtime, refusal to raise the minimum wage, voting to give the authority to launch a pre-emptive war are condoned by those who are supposed to represent OUR interests, as opposed to the interests of their own political career or their corporate sponsors? Why do we not push the eject button on them?

We almost launched a proceeding to impeach the Supreme Court Five, and would have publicly announced our intentions to do so had 911 not occurred. The press conference was to be at 5:00 that afternoon. Why do we not, as Howard Dean suggests, take back our Democracy and politically band together to eject any Congressman or Senator who does not represent the constituency whose interests they are sworn to protect? Why do we just sit by and observe our best interests being flushed down the political toilet?

Question 3: Why do we believe the legislatures have the authority to act brashly and vote on a slate of electors of their own choosing should the outcome of the vote not suit their political preferences? Legislatures are governed by their State Constitutions. In Florida, for instance, the State Legislature could only appoint a slate of electors in 2000 if it were impossible to determine the will of the people as a result of the popular vote. That obviously was a matter under controversy, but in no way could it be publicly proclaimed by the Florida Republicans in the legislature that the popular vote count could not possibly be resolved to determine who the voters of Florida preferred by their votes. Why did so many listen to this threat and fail to dispute the legality of the Republican Florida legislature's right to act not in compliance with its own Constitution?

I have asked these three questions in one thread, as opposed to three separate threads, because the fact that questions such as these exist and do not invite much critical discussion leads me to believe we Dems are not proactive in researching the brash assertions the Republicans make at times of political controversy and cutting them off at the political pass just as quickly and deadly as they would us. We need to erase our political passivity in accepting their brash assertions which are not backed up by law or logic and we need to start now in preparation for much more of the same which will come our way in approximately two weeks.

In the meantime, if you have any comments on my three questions, I would love to hear them.

[poliman]

1. Question #2

Simple. Because every senator and congressman would be undergoing impeachment and we would have government by anarchist.

[poliman]

2. Question #3

I believe all states have an article in their state constitutions giving the stae legislatures the responsibility of selecting electors in the event a ballot count is not completed or legal proceedings render the will of the people undeterminable by the date the electors meet in Washinton at the electoral college. Their failure to do so would null their states input to the electoral college.

[poliman]

3. Reflect

Not everything is a conspiracy!

[Samantha]

4. Thank you for your responses poliman

I like to post questions here at DU designed to make us think. Looks like you were the only one here last evening with your critical thinking cap on. Do you have any thoughts about Question 1?

Today I happened to buy David Boies new book. I started with the last Chapter, the one concerning Bush v. Gore. I am at a point where he begins to address the state legislature question. I will keep you posted as to what I learn.

[Samantha]

5. Bois comments on Question 3 in "Courting Justice"

"The Constitution gives the legislatures of every state the right to decide how that state's electors will be chosen. Every state, including Florida, has decided that its electors should be determined by a vote of the people of that state. Two weeks earlier (than the election) it would have been unthinkable that a state legislature would attempt to deprive its voters of the right to vote for president. For a state legislature to attempt to do so after an election had already been held was more than controversial -- it was unconstitutional.

"The Congress provides that Election Day shall be determined by Congress and 'shall be the same through out the United States.'(footnote omitted) Congress had set November 7 as Election Day. The Florida legislature has no power to choose electors on a subsequent date. Tradition, respect for the will of the people, and good sense might counsel against a modern state legislature's attempting to arrogate to itself the power to choose the state's presidential electors, but as long as the legislature voted itself that power on or before Election Day and exercised that power on that date, such actions would be constitutional. Once November 7 had come and gone, the Florida state legislature was without power to change its mind. That former Secretary of State Jim Baker, a well-respected lawyer, would make such a suggestion ... showed how determined the GOP was to take any action necessary to prevent the results of the recounts from deciding the election...."

(at pages 398-399).

WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT? Part of the reason some Dems threw in the political towel resulted in part from hearing Baker's and the Florida State legislature's threats to take such action should the recounting results move Gore ahead of Bush* in Florida. Reading Boies' words, it is apparent such a maneuver would violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker had to have known that when he uttered these words. He sensed most Americans would have no idea whether this action was legal or illegal. If Republicans were willing to threaten unconstitutional acts in 2000, they will not hesitate to do the same in 2004. It has become apparent Bush* cannot win the 2004 election without Florida.

It is thus imperative that we acquaint ourselves with the legalities of situations such as these in the event these controversies arise again following November 2. We must stand up and say no to unconstitutional, illegal Republican maneuvers during controversial times if we are to prevail.

Still looking for thoughts and comments on Questions 1 and 2. These issues might rear their heads in the ensuing weeks and months and we need to get our analytical juices flowing.