It may be the unhappiest of anniversaries for Al Gore, but like the Phoenix of Ancient Legend, Al has arisen from his ashes as a brilliant beacon of achievement and success with AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, an Academy Award, and The Nobel Peace Prize. What has CHIMPya W. Bush have to show for EIGHT WASTED YEARS in the white house, except: TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY POURED DOWN THE DRAIN INTO THE MORASS AND BOTTOMLESS SINKHOLE CALLED Iraq, BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS EMBEZZLED BY Monkey-boy CHIMPya W. Bush, Bucket of Bolts Torticola DICK-less B(ugger) FRANKENCheney and Bushland Uber Allies for their own personal gain and benefiting their cronies of the Military Industrial Complex's coffers, and INSTIGATING and PARTICIPATING in INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES AND HIGH DOMESTIC CRIMES, LIKE DISREGARDING HABEAS CORPUS AND TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PARADING AROUND LIKE THE FASCIST-NAZI and NAZI-FASCISTS THAT THEY ARE! All CHIMPya has to look forward to is PERHAPS EVADING the LONG ARM OF THE LAW as it SEEKS TO TIGHTEN AROUND HIS AND Cheney's NO-ACCOUNT SCRAWNY NECKS AND CHOKE THE LIFE FROM THEIR WORTHLESS CARCASES WHILE AL GORE LOOKS DOWN ON THE PATHETIC SCENE AND GRINS MERRILY FROM ON HIGH!!!!! HAH!

Simple issue first --

"Simply put, no. A "public minister or consul" means an ambassador or similar representative of a foreign country."

Per your definition or per one handed down from previous US Supreme Courts as they are the ones who decide such matters?

Per plain English as well as logical context. Nobody has ever argued that the president is a "public minister or consul." Find me a case in which the Court has said otherwise and I'll buy it. Your other points have some validity but this one isn't worth arguing about in the least.

As for the other points -- our electoral system is pretty antiquated and screwed up. It *should* be the case that federal institutions have the final say in presidential elections, but it isn't (although Congress does have some say, at least). The way our Constitution is set up, there are 50 separate statewide presidential elections and, constitutionally, the Supreme Court doesn't have a role. The Court's powers are pretty circumscribed. Each of its decisions needs a constitutional peg.

I'm not trying to argue with you just to argue with you or to make a partisan point. In fact, if the roles between Gore and Bush had been reversed, it still wouldn't have been the Court's place to intervene.

tinmanic,

(1)I don't think this is a fair comparison -- reams of books have been written about whether the South was within its rights to leave the Union. It's a whole 'nother issue entirely.

I disagree - it was the start of the loss of states rights to the Federal government and as such is pertinent to this discussion.

(2) In any event, the Republic wasn't at stake in the 2000 election. There was no pressing need for the votes to be counted by mid-December, especially since Congress didn't need to validate the votes until January.

The republic was at stake due to the transition of the government from one leader to another. There was little overlap and as everyone can attest there was great confusion during the first few months of this Administration - quite possibly in part due to this.

(3) Constitutional doctrine is pretty clear that states have the final say over state issues that don't touch on the federal constitution. Dr. Zachary Smith in his comment does raise a potential point about federal equal protection, but this was the first (and, according to the Court, apparently the last) time in U.S. history that disparate methods for counting votes constituted an equal protection violation.

Ah but it does touch on the federal constitution when said elected official is one holding power granted by the Constitution, does it not?

"Simply put, no. A "public minister or consul" means an ambassador or similar representative of a foreign country."

Per your definition or per one handed down from previous US Supreme Courts as they are the ones who decide such matters?

"But the U.S. Supreme Court had as much authority in this situation as I did. It doesn't matter if the Court thought the decision needed to be made; it lacked the power to make that decision."

Except for the fact that the US Supreme Court had authority due to the fact this was a federal election concerning the election of the highest official in the land. And apparently, everyone in government agreed as no one argued the point in Congress.

"Wow, that's quite a statement. I'm sorry, but which constitutional amendment are you referring to there?"

The same one which allowed Abraham Lincoln to force the Southern states back into the union...

(1)I don't think this is a fair comparison -- reams of books have been written about whether the South was within its rights to leave the Union. It's a whole 'nother issue entirely.

(2) In any event, the Republic wasn't at stake in the 2000 election. There was no pressing need for the votes to be counted by mid-December, especially since Congress didn't need to validate the votes until January.

(3) Constitutional doctrine is pretty clear that states have the final say over state issues that don't touch on the federal constitution. Dr. Zachary Smith in his comment does raise a potential point about federal equal protection, but this was the first (and, according to the Court, apparently the last) time in U.S. history that disparate methods for counting votes constituted an equal protection violation.

Ok...I am not a lawyer but I must ask you a question...does not the President fit the bill as a public minister or consel in this case?

Simply put, no. A "public minister or consul" means an ambassador or similar representative of a foreign country.

At any rate, the US Supreme Court made the decision that needed to be made. Frankly the Florida State Supreme Court legislated from the bench by stating the process was not over, even though the Florida State Constitution states SPECIFICALLY that Harris had the authority to call a halt to the election. As someone who studied the law, you surely cannot argue that point.

But the U.S. Supreme Court had as much authority in this situation as I did. It doesn't matter if the Court thought the decision needed to be made; it lacked the power to make that decision.