PCMech Forums - View Single Post - I'm about to be right again for the third time!!!!

LawyerRon · 11-23-2000, 10:26 AM

Carlgif,
No one (including me) knows for sure what the USSC will hear or won't hear. As an Attorney, if you can make a plausable argument (here the 14th. Am. challenge) and the Presidency is on the line, you have an affirmative duty to advise your client to make the argument. In other words, if the whole ballgame's on the line, you've gotta go for it. The USSC might buy their Due Process/Equal Protection argument.

Kieth,

Quote:
"...but isn't there some sort of precedent that might cause the USSC to hear a case when it envolves "compelling federal issues", which would then supersede state law? It would seem to me that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue".

Your "Compelling Federal Issues" is really just another way of stating "Federal Qustion Jurisdiction" which is what you must invoke to get the USSC to hear your case. On the surface, it would appear that "that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue", however, it the USSC feels the Fl. SC decided the case correctly, and based their decision on "Adequate State Grounds", the USSC has no juridiction to hear the case.

People argue in the forum a lot over "States Rights", "10th. Amendment", etc., but as you can see, the States really have more power than many people realize and give them credit for.

Quote:
"Aside from that, when a state supreme court would seem to have over-stepped it's bounds, what redress would the damaged party have?"

Ahhhh,
Nice catch. Bush may of hit paydirt here. This is where he's setting up his "Separation of Powers" argument. He argues that all election decisions are under the authority of the Legislature and the Fl. Sup. Ct. violates Separation of Powers when it told the Legislature how to run its election.

11-23-2000, 10:26 AM	#4
LawyerRon The Gavel Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Upland, CA Posts: 6,311	Carlgif, No one (including me) knows for sure what the USSC will hear or won't hear. As an Attorney, if you can make a plausable argument (here the 14th. Am. challenge) and the Presidency is on the line, you have an affirmative duty to advise your client to make the argument. In other words, if the whole ballgame's on the line, you've gotta go for it. The USSC might buy their Due Process/Equal Protection argument. Kieth, Quote: "...but isn't there some sort of precedent that might cause the USSC to hear a case when it envolves "compelling federal issues", which would then supersede state law? It would seem to me that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue". Your "Compelling Federal Issues" is really just another way of stating "Federal Qustion Jurisdiction" which is what you must invoke to get the USSC to hear your case. On the surface, it would appear that "that electing a President would be a compelling federal issue", however, it the USSC feels the Fl. SC decided the case correctly, and based their decision on "Adequate State Grounds", the USSC has no juridiction to hear the case. People argue in the forum a lot over "States Rights", "10th. Amendment", etc., but as you can see, the States really have more power than many people realize and give them credit for. Quote: "Aside from that, when a state supreme court would seem to have over-stepped it's bounds, what redress would the damaged party have?" Ahhhh, Nice catch. Bush may of hit paydirt here. This is where he's setting up his "Separation of Powers" argument. He argues that all election decisions are under the authority of the Legislature and the Fl. Sup. Ct. violates Separation of Powers when it told the Legislature how to run its election. __________________ "To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves"