George W. Bush was never legally elected President in the Florida 2000 elections.
by Thomas J. Wheat Mirror Site Status of the Social Safety net, & National Debt After Bush
According to a Miami Herald study published in their paper December 3rd, 2000 Al Gore really won in florida by over 23000 votes, if the 185000 uncounted votes were tallied. More on that Here: MiamiHeraldGore2000.html New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman on the Miami Herald study and the later November 2001 study by the university of chicago that shows Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if a statewide recount had taken place in florida. see this article:
"Don't Prettify Our History" By PAUL KRUGMAN
Also George W. Bush was either complicit or inept in preventing the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. It was his father's administration who put Osama on the CIA payroll. He ignored multiple warnings that the terrorists were going to strike. Finally Bush's family history shows that his grandfather was a banker for adolph hitler, and that Bush was in Business with James Bath who was in business with Osama Bin Laden's elder brother, Salem Bin Laden. Bush must be impeached from office. He is bad for America. He's allowed the NSA to spy on our phonecalls. Bush will trample civil liberties to cement the Republican establishment long after he is gone. Consider what would happen if Al Gore would have won. We would have had two Democrat appointed Supreme Court Justices. These are lifetime appointments. Presidents' throughout history have used foreign policy to expand their control over domestic policy. The White House Administration's War on Terror is a cloak for partisanship, terrorist blackmail and is an attempt to salvage the President's failed Domestic agenda.
The Florida 2000 Election Conspiracy
According to the US supreme Court decision, Bush vs. Gore, 2000, the only reason Al Gore lost the election to George Bush was because he lost the state of florida by 535 votes, while still winning the popular vote by over 2.5 million votes nation wide.
According to Greg Palast and Martin Luther King III, tHE BUSH RELELCTION CAMPAIGN COMMITTED VOTER FRAUD WHILE TABULATING the vote in Florida. In all it is believed that 90,000 eligible black and Hispanic voters were denied the right to vote. These people were denied the right to vote because Database Technologies (ChoicePoint) incorrectly classified these eligible voters as felons. Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris hired Database Technologies. She was in charge of elections in Florida. It was Kathleen Harris who was also in charge of Jeb Bush's reelection campaign. Database Tech. was hired approximately a year before the elections offering a $4.3 million dollar bid to tabulate votes. The former company who had tabulated the votes for Florida offered a bid for $5700 dollars.
The US civil Rights commission also found clear evidence of voter disenfranchisement. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/exesum.htm
Essentially, what happened was that if an eligible black voter with no felonies on his record shared the same surname as another felon both people were denied the right to vote. Also according to Allan J. Lichtman, Professor of History at American University, that 90 % of all rejected ballots were cast by black voters. see this report:
REPORT ON THE RACIAL IMPACT OF THE REJECTION OF BALLOTS
According to David Moore former Gallup pollster, and author of "How to Steal An Election," the supreme court's decision was partly based on Fox News calling the election prematurely in favor of Bush before democratic leaning counties in florida had tabulated the vote. For more on that see my summary of David Moore's book:
Out of that 179,855 ballots were never counted.
Furthermore, 4917 eligible black voters were disqualified from voting for felonies they never committed and for which DataBase Technologies (ChoicePoint) had blank conviction dates.
Greg Palast is a reporter for the BBC, the Observer, and the Manchester Guardian. Also, he is the author of, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," a book about the 2000 elections and multinational corporate corruption.
Also Check out Alan Dershowitz's book: "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000"
US Supreme Court Justice Stevens Dissent to Bush v Gore 2000
Dershowitz essentially argues in his book that the supreme court decision Bush vs. Gore, 2000) violated the past supreme court ruling Marbury v Madison 1803 specifically the principle of Judicial review. (85) He argues that Article II of the US constitution gives state legislatures the right to determine how they conduct elections.Dershowitz argues that (Bush v. Gore, 2000) violates the 10th amendment. He argues that the 10th amendment and marbury versus madison gives the state judiciary the right to rule on laws that are contradictory, essentially the same power enjoyed by the us supreme court. At issue was the fact that the Florida Supreme court had ruled that pursuant to the Florida election law principle of Clear voter intent via the numerous errors by the votomatic machines warranted an extension of the secretary of state's voter certification deadline by 12 days in order to conduct a manual recount.
The supreme court in a 5-4 decision ruled on procedural grounds that this violated article II. It should be noted that the five judges who voted to stop the recount were all republican appointees. Florida's clear voter intent law says even if ballots are improperly cast if there is sufficient evidence to prove voter intent the ballots must be counted.(59, 86-87) "manual recount authorized in section 102.166(4) (d). Section 102.166(7)(b) states: If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent. "
The certification deadline conflicted with the spirit of clear voter intent because it made it impossible to conduct a manual recount when there was strong evidence showing machine malfunction and confusingly designed ballot cards. Dershowitz argues that according to the principle of Judicial review the Florida Supreme court acted within its jurisdiction by extending the voter certification deadline.
Bush filed suit to US supreme court relying on the doctrine of equal protection from the 14th amendment. He argued that improperly cast ballots regardless of the circumstances were void and should not be counted. He argued that to count these ballots would be discriminatory to him and create a process called voter dilution. Essentially he argued that only properly submitted ballots should be cast (even despite the mechanical error of the votomatic machines) and that to count disqualified ballots would dilute his share of the vote and thereby violate the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. However, it should also be noted that many of the ballots properly submitted were not tallied by the votomatic machines. Dershowitz argues that Florida's Clear voter intent law is guranteed by the equal protection clause. (57-61)
Dershowitz rightly states that The 14th amendment was originally created to end discrimination against minority races and that it was appaling that such a law was used to disenfranchise minorities when it had been crafted for their benefit. The bush dominated supreme court used that very same amendment to disenfranchise african american's from voting. By far the largest number of rejected ballots were cast by blacks and voters who traditionally voted democrat.(80) It should be noted that the chief justice william Rehnquist was a strong supporter of racial seggregation early on in his career. He argued that Plessy vs. ferguson should be upheld and that brown v board of education was unconstitutional.(Dershowitz, 142)
179,855 ballots were not counted because of the malfunctioning voting machines or because in the case of butterfly ballots they were designed ambigously. Only when the intial manual recount was closing the gap on the Bush lead did he claim a violation of equal protection. Furthermore the Supreme court cited no legal precedent (Stare Decisis) for its ruling in nullyfying the state's rights jurisdiction of the florida supreme court other than to say Article II had been violated. (132)
It is humorous to acknowlege that republicans always bring up the state's right argument but in this case they clearly violated the power of the state court to interpret and rule on conflicting laws. Justice Scalia almost always champions state's rights cases but in this case his ruling reflected reactionary seggregationalist federalism. (125)
Also the Newsweek article "The Truth behind the pillars," exposed the fact that Justice Sandra day O'conner already had a partisan viewpoint regarding the election. while at a party eyewitness accounts overheard here saying that Gore's lead in the polls was 'terrible.'
Of equal Interest: O'conner also signaled her intention to only retire if a republican president was elected. (156) Also the "Uncle Tom" Justice Clarence Thomas recieved less than favorable ratings from the american bar association.(198) see "Thomas the least qualified nominee so far?" National Law Journal 9/16/91 It should be noted Bush no longer allows the ABA to screen prospective Judges. (200),
Inconclusion the supreme Court's ruling on article II actually violated that statute. Article II does give the state's rights to have their legislature determine how to conduct presidential elections. However, you had to conflicting florida election laws. There was the voter certification deadline and the clear voter intent law. The 10th amendment and marbury versus madison 1804, gives the state judiciary under the power of state's rights and judicial review to rule on conflicting laws. The conservative arguements against this are weak and they refuse to acknowlege that the voting machines did not even tabulate some properly cast ballots. Furthermore the Supreme Court cited no legal precedent in Bush v Gore, 2000. How would the constitution of the United States of america or the Bill of Rights be irrevocably harmed by the florida supreme court's ruling that the voter certification deadline be extended by 12 days. Conservative arguments against this are a red herring fallacy. The resulting argument actually violates the rationale behind the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Thus the procedural ruling disenfrancised 179,000 people. Furthermore The ruling was partisan since the judges who voted for the majority opinion were republican appointees and those who were disenfranchised were blacks and democrat voters. This proves that America no longer has a independant judiciary the cornerstone of a true democracy