Sunday, October 09, 2005
Do as we say, don't do as we do.
This post is a little off topic. Its not about Venezuela. It’s not about Iraq. And it’s certainly not about oil. But in another sense it is relevant to what often winds up being discussed on this blog and what is discussed more widely with respect to the legitimacy of governments.
There are many media, think tanks, and “human rights” organizations that are often critical of many, generally poor, nations for their supposed lack of respect for law, “weak” institutions, or supposed lack of “checks of balances”. And who is generally held up as the paradigm of how governments should function and how laws should be respected? Quite often the United States.
Well, in the United States they apparently had a little legal or constitutional problem during the 2000 presidential elections that would seem to cast doubt on the idea that in that country they follow the law or have any meaningful “checks and balances” And no, it didn’t have anything to do with Florida.
Here are excerpts from the October 7th Wall Street Journal article explaining on the problem:
Now, I have to admit that I had never heard of this case prior to reading this article. In fact, I hadn’t even heard of the 12th Amendment. But I looked it up and there it was:
So lets see what we have here; the U.S. Constitution prohibits electors from a given state from voting for both a President and Vice-President from that same state; Bush and Cheney were both from Texas – unless where you live, own your house, pay taxes, and vote don’t count for anything; a Republican Judge said the case had no merit because the paintiffs didn’t have “an injury in fact to them personally” [I guess having your preferred candidate lose to someone who wins by virtue of ignoring the Constitution doesn’t constitute an “injury”]; lastly the whole case is decided in favor of the Republican candidate by three Republican Appeals Court lawyers in a matter of minutes.
So the vote by the U.S. electoral college to give Bush and Cheney a victory with 271 electors was clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And when citizens looked to the courts to uphold the Constitution they were told to get lost by judges from the very same political party that Bush and Cheney are from.
So where is the rule of law? Where are the famed “checks and balances” that some talk so loudly about? Where are the “institutions” that are supposed to prevent this from happening? They all seem to be missing in action. And where are all international busy bodies who go around making sure everything is on the up and up? I don’t recall Human Rights Watch having anything to say about this even though they have a lot to say about alledged judicial shortcomings in other countries. And why isn’t there a clamor for the “Inter-American Democratic Charter" to be invoked? I guess it must be that all these formalities only apply to “the little countries.” When you’re the worlds sole superpower you get to make up your own rules.
So next time you hear the U.S. pontificating about what a great democracy they are and how everyone else is to be judged against them you might want to remember this case. “Do as we say, don’t do as we do” should be their national motto.
|
There are many media, think tanks, and “human rights” organizations that are often critical of many, generally poor, nations for their supposed lack of respect for law, “weak” institutions, or supposed lack of “checks of balances”. And who is generally held up as the paradigm of how governments should function and how laws should be respected? Quite often the United States.
Well, in the United States they apparently had a little legal or constitutional problem during the 2000 presidential elections that would seem to cast doubt on the idea that in that country they follow the law or have any meaningful “checks and balances” And no, it didn’t have anything to do with Florida.
Here are excerpts from the October 7th Wall Street Journal article explaining on the problem:
President Bush cites many accomplishments of Harriet Miers to explain her nomination to the Supreme Court. One the White House doesn’t mention is her succesful arguement during the disputed 2000 election that Dick Cheney is definitely not a Texan.
.............................................................................................................
The section of the Constitution at issue is the relatively obscure 12th Amendment, overshadowed by its neighbor, the 13th, which abolished slavery after the Civil War. Ratified after the disputed 1800 election, the 12th lays out a number of regulations for the Electoral College. The rule in question says a state’s delegation can’t vote for presidential and vice presidential candidates who are both from the electors’ home state.
The 12th Amendment sat silently on the books for 196 years until the Bush-Cheney ticket, after falling 543.895 votes short of the Gore-Lieberman ticket, nevertheless stood poised to claim 271 electoral votes to the Democrats’ 266.
Annoyed by that prospect, three Texas voters filed suit under what they called the Constitution’s Habitation Clause, seeking to prevent the state’s 32 electoral votes from going to the Republicans. George W. Bush, then the state’s governor, didn’t deny his Texas standing, despite being born in Connecticut. But the plaintiffs also alleged that Dick Cheney lived in Dallas as chief executive of Halliburton Co. Mr. Cheney contended he was a Wyomingite.
With Bush v. Gore heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, few took notice of Jones v. Bush when it was filed Nov. 20 in Dallas’s federal courthouse. Mr. Bush understood the stakes and dispatched his crackerjack legal counselor Ms. Miers.
....................................................................................................................
According to court papers, Mr. Cheney bought a home and registered to vote in Dallas in 1995. After that date, he also held a Texas drivers license, paid Texas taxes and claimed the state’s homestead tax deduction.
..................................................................................................................
Mr. Cheney also owned a Cadillac and a Lexus registered in Texas. He registered a Mercedes-Benz in Virginia where he owned a townhouse, and a Jeep in Wyoming. The Miers team noted that Cheney put his Dallas home up for sale while the plaintiffs pointed out a listing describing it as “owner-occupied”.
...................................................................................................................
Judge Fitzwater, a Reagan appointee, sided with Ms. Miers’s earlier argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. On Dec. 1, he ruled that their “general interest in seen that the government abides by the Constitution” fell short of the requirement that they have “an injury in fact to them personally.”
He went on to opine that Mr. Cheney, for constitutional purposes, was a Wyomingite. “It is undisputed that he was born, raised, educated and married in Wyoming and represented the state as a member of Congress for six terms,” Judge Fitzwater wrote perhaps unaware that Mr. Cheney lists his birthplace as Lincoln, Neb.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans where Ms. Miers again argued on behalf of Mr. Bush recalls Jerry Clements, a partner at Ms. Miers’s former law firm, Lock Liddell & Sapp, who worked with her on the case.
Rather than wait weeks, the three Republican-appointed judges returned in minutes with a decision for the Bush Cheney ticket. Ms. Clements attributes the instant ruling in part to Ms. Miers’s “great presentation.”
Now, I have to admit that I had never heard of this case prior to reading this article. In fact, I hadn’t even heard of the 12th Amendment. But I looked it up and there it was:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves....
So lets see what we have here; the U.S. Constitution prohibits electors from a given state from voting for both a President and Vice-President from that same state; Bush and Cheney were both from Texas – unless where you live, own your house, pay taxes, and vote don’t count for anything; a Republican Judge said the case had no merit because the paintiffs didn’t have “an injury in fact to them personally” [I guess having your preferred candidate lose to someone who wins by virtue of ignoring the Constitution doesn’t constitute an “injury”]; lastly the whole case is decided in favor of the Republican candidate by three Republican Appeals Court lawyers in a matter of minutes.
So the vote by the U.S. electoral college to give Bush and Cheney a victory with 271 electors was clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And when citizens looked to the courts to uphold the Constitution they were told to get lost by judges from the very same political party that Bush and Cheney are from.
So where is the rule of law? Where are the famed “checks and balances” that some talk so loudly about? Where are the “institutions” that are supposed to prevent this from happening? They all seem to be missing in action. And where are all international busy bodies who go around making sure everything is on the up and up? I don’t recall Human Rights Watch having anything to say about this even though they have a lot to say about alledged judicial shortcomings in other countries. And why isn’t there a clamor for the “Inter-American Democratic Charter" to be invoked? I guess it must be that all these formalities only apply to “the little countries.” When you’re the worlds sole superpower you get to make up your own rules.
So next time you hear the U.S. pontificating about what a great democracy they are and how everyone else is to be judged against them you might want to remember this case. “Do as we say, don’t do as we do” should be their national motto.
|
