Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I repeat the Supreme Court is the final arbitor as to what is and is not Constitutional. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to do anything Unconstitutional.
You don't like this? Work to create an amendment to the Constitution that specifically says this is not true.
Actually Gore NOT Bush tried to subvert Florida law. He was granted all recourse under the laws of Florida, he got a mandatory recount and he got to ask for and receive a hand recount where he wanted. He lost on both recounts.
Florida law was upheld. The Supreme Court of Florida chose to ignore Florida law for a partisan decision on party lines to allow more recounts and to allow those recounts to be influenced by personal opinion not law.
Read the SCOTUS decision. 7 of 9 Justices agreed it violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution. 5 of them understood there was no more time to recount. To continue would have ensured Florida was in its ENTIRETY disenfranchised because of federal law.
They never finished the recount so how can that be?
they do NOT rewrite the constitution they are supposed to aplly the constitution to the cases they judge.
If they deside something which goes agains the constitution then they are in violation of the constitution
It is NOT impossible
True enough, they can be impeached. So which ones were considered by the Senate for impeachment?The Supreme Court IS NOT above the Constitution, since when were they EVER above the constitution?
Their actions on this matter was unconstitutional in every manner and as I have said, Constitutional Scholars have said such....even some of the justices have said such.... Yes, in the dissents, but they were in the minority, which is how the court works.
This was a States Issue and the Florida Supreme Court was the final arbitrator according to our constitution when it involves an election, and yes, even a federal election.
There are provisions writen in to our constitution that tell us exactly what we are suppose to do in a disputed federal election and the Republicans did everything they could to subvert them, and they succeeded. Which Article and sections are you referring to? I've not seen that.
Again, this is just another touchy issue that has lead to the divisiveness among us fellow Americans...imo.
Also, Supreme court Justices can also be impeached.....they do not have MORE power than any of the other two branches of government.
It would later be discovered that approximately 97% of the people removed from the list - and thus denied the right to vote in the election - were not felons at all.
If that were true then there would not be a means in our constitution to impeach a justice imo?I repeat the Supreme Court is the final arbitor as to what is and is not Constitutional. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to do anything Unconstitutional.
You don't like this? Work to create an amendment to the Constitution that specifically says this is not true.
If that were true then there would not be a means in our constitution to impeach a justice imo?
VIII
Removal from Office
Print this section
Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chases opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.
In the wake of the controversy over Abe Fortass financial practices, the Court became more restrained in its public activities. Once confirmed to the Court, justices try to ensure that their investments and outside income do not bring their integrity into question. Common practice now dictates that justices also remove themselves from politics, refraining from speaking out about controversial issues or pending legislation. The justices can make public speeches, but these are usually confined to subjects related to the law in general and to the federal court system. In these and other questions of judicial ethics the Court usually follows the American Bar Association (ABA) Code of Judicial Conduct, although these rules are not binding on the Court.
Speaking of felons.... who are they more likely to vote for.... A republican that wants them held accountable for their crimes and punished ... OR... a democrat that wants to let them go because no one is responsible for anything?
Furthermore, isn't it the liberals that keep telling us MOST felons are black? And who do Blacks vote for in overwhelming numbers?
What a bunch of tripe.
I'll make that a given, it's from 2004 and not 2000. Not a mention of Harris that I could see.
True enough, they can be impeached. So which ones were considered by the Senate for impeachment?
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Actually Gore NOT Bush tried to subvert Florida law. He was granted all recourse under the laws of Florida, he got a mandatory recount and he got to ask for and receive a hand recount where he wanted. He lost on both recounts.
Florida law was upheld. The Supreme Court of Florida chose to ignore Florida law for a partisan decision on party lines to allow more recounts and to allow those recounts to be influenced by personal opinion not law.
Read the SCOTUS decision. 7 of 9 Justices agreed it violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution. 5 of them understood there was no more time to recount. To continue would have ensured Florida was in its ENTIRETY disenfranchised because of federal law.
This started the thread and yet the thread starter and his allies can not answer two simple questions.... I have asked them and quoted them several times now.
Assuming this is true ( and for argument sake we will) the questions are...
What would you do to prevent this from happening in the future?
AND
What would you do to rectify the problem now?
