James Constant


The Supreme Court's ruling is wrong for arbitrarily invokingthe law, by arbitrarily exercising constitutional jurisdiction, by arbitrarily refusing to decide all claims presented, and by arbitrarily using equal protection to decide a political question.

Bush's brief asked the Supreme Court (SCT) to rule on two claims, first, the Article II Constitutional claim whether the Florida Supreme Court (FSCT) replaced Florida's election laws "with laws of its own invention" and, second, the equal protection claim whether differing Florida vote counting standards violated one-man one-vote law. The SCT arbitrarily, without constitutional jurisdiction, refused to decide the "making law" claim but granted the "equal protection "claim.

By arbitrarily exercising appellate jurisdiction, the SCT not only preserved judicial intervention in political questions but did so in violation of its earlier decision, in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), which told us that its constitutional duty to resolve controversies excludes political questions. The making of laws and the making of standards for vote counting are political not judicial matters. Thus, for the second time, the SCT took up two political questions over which it lacked constitutional jurisdiction. But even if constitutional jurisdiction was present, which it was not, the SCT's decision made a mockery of the law.

Full book available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/332426