QUOTE
fantomas:
The US Supreme Court wrongly elevated him instead.
All they did was tell the FL. Supreme Court that it did not have the constitutional authority to do what the FL. State Legislature was empowered to do. When the FL. Supreme Court, as their
Democratic Chief Justice admitted, disregarded the U.S. Constitution and
federal U.S. codes, the U.S. Supreme Court had no choice but to rule the way they did.
QUOTE
Relevant U.S. Codes claimed (in whole or in part) to have been usurped by the FL. Supreme Court
Sec. 2. - Failure to make choice on prescribed day
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct
Sec. 5. - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
Sec. 6. - Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Sec. 7. - Meeting and vote of electors
The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.
Note that when the word "state" is used, it applies not to the judiciary of a particular state, but to the state legislature, which shall have the sole and final authority in determining its electors, judiciary's intervention notwithstanding.
I might not have liked for the U.S. Supreme Court to be involved, you may not have liked for the U.S. Supreme Court to be involved, but at least I viewed it in constitutional terms and not partisan terms, which is what the Left to this day still believes.
[ December 16, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]