-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Electing from the bench ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- � 2000 WorldNetDaily.com There's nothing like personal experience to strengthen one's resolve, to turn a principle into a conviction. On Nov. 14, Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rewrote Florida's election statute and inserted three provisions the legislature had never enacted. Such judicial legislation not only neuters the right of Floridians to govern themselves through their legislature but in this case also hijacks the right of all Americans to elect their president through the electoral system. It should strengthen Governor George W. Bush's resolve to appoint only "strict constructionists" to the federal bench should he become president. During the campaign, Mr. Bush repeatedly vowed to appoint judges who would "interpret the law, not make it" and who would not "legislate from the bench." That was the design of America's founders and the absolute imperative for self-government and the rule of law. In each case before him, the judge's job is to interpret the relevant law, apply it to the facts, and announce the result. As Black's Law Dictionary puts is, interpretation is "ascertaining the meaning of a ... written document." In that famous case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall said that a judge's duty is to "say what the law is." The law before Judge Lewis in this case was Chapter 102 of the Florida Statutes. Section 112 is directed at county election boards, and reads, "Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the ... general election." The same section backs up this mandatory deadline by requiring the Secretary of State to fine each county election board member $200 for each day the returns are late. Even the definitionally-challenged Bill Clinton would have a hard time avoiding the clear meaning of this provision. But wait, it gets even clearer. Section 111 is directed at the state election board and reads, "If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified." So what is the law in this case? A specific requirement (backed up by mandatory fines) that counties certify their returns by 5:00 p.m. on the seventh day after an election (Nov. 14) and a specific requirement that the state ignore the counties that do not. Not only is each provision clear by itself, but is in perfect harmony with the other. That's "what the law is" in this case. The facts to which this law must be applied are that some counties did not want to comply with the deadline because they were doing manual recounts after two machine counts had already been completed. Rather than being required to finish manual recounts by the deadline, they said the deadline must be waived for their manual recounts. The judge's job here should have been easy. If the Florida legislature had worried that manual recounts could not be completed in time, it could easily have made an exception or set a separate or flexible deadline. It did not. Since judges are supposed to interpret different provisions of the same statute to be compatible rather than contradictory, the only conclusion is that the legislature intended that while manual recounts be allowed, they be finished by the deadline to avoid being ignored. This was obviously not a result this local elected judge wanted to reach. Simply saying what the law is and applying it to the facts would make too many people too upset with him. So he decided to write a different statute, one that would appear to give something to everyone. He could not simply say that such a clear mandatory deadline does not exist; this is America, after all, not Wonderland. So he said that county election boards "must certify and file what election returns they have by the statutory deadline of 5 p.m. of November 14th." But because, he said, "it is easy to imagine a situation" where a manual recount could not be completed by the deadline, he ruled that counties doing manual recounts may "file supplemental or corrective returns." While "the secretary of state may ignore such late-filed returns," she "may not do so arbitrarily." So Judge Lewis made at least three changes to Chapter 102 of the Florida Statutes. First, he amended section 112 by making the requirement that late-filed returns be ignored optional (he changed "must" to "may"). Second, he amended section 166 by adding a provision allowing for supplemental or corrective returns to be filed after the deadline. Third, he added a section requiring that decisions about ignoring late-filed returns be reviewed by, surprise, a judge. The Florida legislature enacted none of these provisions; they were legislated by Judge Lewis. Rather than let the law determine the result, Judge Lewis let his desired result determine the law. Whether "it is easy to imagine" certain things or not, it must be the legislature and not a judge doing the imagining for it to change the law. He created an election system the people of Florida had chosen not to create, one that turns objective rules into subjective guidelines and takes decisions out of the executive branch and tosses them into the courts. In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln warned against this very kind of judicial activism which puts judges in charge of determining public policy. In that instance, he said, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of [judges]." Should Mr. Bush have the opportunity to deliver his first inaugural address, he might want to remind America of this principle. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
