In the time since the election we have heard, and I have spoken to, a great deal of Democrats who feel that the Federal government needs to step in and take charge of National elections at the state-level. This potpourri of state election procedures simply will not due, and something needs to be done to ensure that "the people's voice is heard".
To them I would say, "I couldn't agree more." I am all for state's rights, but when one state's procedures effect citizens of another, such as in a national election, then it is well within the jurisdiction of the Federal government to step in and regulate. At the risk of sounding close-minded, I don't think that any reasonable person would disagree with that.
But that is not the focus of this piece. The focus of this piece is really how much things can change in four years. Four years ago when Al Gore was contesting a defeat in the State of Florida, the same liberals who are now shouting for Federal reform, were then decrying Federal intervention as a hijacking of the Democratic process. At that time Federal intervention came in the form of the Supreme Court stepping in, taking the tent down, and forcing the circus to move along.
Now the reality of that situation, as evidenced by the Supreme Court ruling, is that the Court was simply trying to do then what liberals are asking for now. They were trying to standardize election procedures, and thus ensure that the policies of one state did not delegitimize an election for 49 others. Now granted, these procedures were on the county level, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the state, but what the Supreme Court was trying to establish is that discrepancies on any level during a National election are under the jurisdiction of the Federal government.
So at this time, I am going to make a few rules for our liberal friends. If you are going continually bring up Bush's "theft" of the 2000 election, then you can no longer beat the drum for Federal Election reform. In your opinion the Federal Government has no right to mandate to the states how to choose its electors, and should stay out of state elections. If you choose to continue advocating Federal Election reform, then you must let go of 2000. By advocating Federal Election reform you agree that the Federal Government has the right to intervene in state election procedures, just as it did in 2000. So what's it going to be? Take your time, think about it, and get back to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry, guess this makes me a major moderate but it was arguably unconstitutional for the supreme court to call the 2000 election but I would greatly favor oversight by a non-elected federal agency in insuring that each states method for collecting and counting votes did not violate basic math or the consitution, beyond that, I guess they could choose to vote with hammer and chisel as long as there was some way to prove that votes could not be tampered with. Do you really think that a majority republican nominated supreme court would have called it for Gore if the evidence that they chose to look at was in his favor? really? you do know that there is no santa claus dont you? Its a flawed system, I fully volunteer that if Clinton had pushed the supreme court liberal, Gore would have won, still with no legal right to do so, we have to take the POSSIBILITY of party corruption out of the process.
I am not arguing the fact that it was unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to step in. Anyone who has read the Constitution would agree.
What I am saying is that you can't have it both ways. If you were against the Supreme Court intervening in Florida, it is hypocritical to now say that Congress should legislate uniform election procedures. In both cases it is the Federal Government regulating state elections, which treads on the whole "seperation of Powers" issue, and is unconstitutional.
Now at this point, you may be thinking that I am a bit of a hypocrite since in the original post, I said that I would be in favor of Federal regulation of National elections in the states. Let me assure you that I am not a hypocrite, as I would only advocate such regulation if it were accompanied by a Constitutional Amendment giving the Federal government that power.
Now I understand the politics of the 2000 election. In Florida, you had the ultraliberal Supreme Court trying to give the election to Gore. I think if you examine the law, and read the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, you will find that the U.S. Supreme Court was closer to interpreting the law, instead of making the law as the Florida Supreme Court was trying to do. I think both courts were operating outside of their jurisdiction, and maybe if the U.S. Supreme Court was more liberal, Gore would have won, but it wasn't.
Anyway, the main point of that piece was to get across the connection between election reform now and judicial review then, and not to rehash the election.
And are you implying that there is no Santa Claus?
I guess I am saying that the federal government stepped in where they where not at the time legally allowed to do so, but moving forward I would like to amend the consitution to allow some federal regulations and oversite but still not allow the supreme court to decide on a states election. If I am not mistaken, I think we might actually agree. You are very fair in saying that people cried foul, correctly in 2000 and now want the federal government to 'do something about it' this time is a bit off, if they want to pick and choose then they need to modify the constitution, they cant just say 'when it suits us'
We have to solve these problems on a larger scale, get out of the partisan mindset if for no other reason than how much the parties change, I mean, it was in fact the democrats that favored slavery and the republicans who abolished it, ironically today it is arguable that african americans are the least well served group by the republican party and are a major benefactor of a majority demorcratic congress.
So all I am asking for is that the rules be above that. Maybe we do need to re-think states rights?
Post a Comment