DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 108 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 149 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003 No. 155 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. The point of no quorum is considered at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. withdrawn. Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert A. Borski Post Office Building’’. Coughlin, offered the following prayer: f Because You are the Lord God, all re- H.R. 2396. An act to designate the facility late to You, each in his or her own PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE of the United States Postal Service located way. Because You are the Creator of at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, Cali- The SPEAKER. Will the gentle- fornia, as the ‘‘Francisco A. Martinez Flores the heavens and all on Earth, from the woman from Michigan (Mrs. MILLER) Post Office’’. beginning, even until now everything come forward and lead the House in the H.R. 2452. An act to designate the facility and everyone is interrelated and held Pledge of Allegiance. of the United States Postal Service located by You. Teach us, Lord, how to relate Mrs. MILLER of Michigan led the at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New to one another. Pledge of Allegiance as follows: York, as the ‘‘Brian C. Hickey Post Office Guide all in this Nation, especially Building’’. the Members of this Chamber, how to I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the H.R. 2533. An act to designate the facility United States of America, and to the Repub- of the United States Postal Service located relate to the problems and the human lic for which it stands, one nation under God, concerns that confront the family of at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Geor- indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. gia, as the ‘‘J.C. Lewis, Jr. Post Office Build- nations. Your word tells us, Lord: ‘‘In f ing’’. Your relations with one another, H.R. 2746. An act to designate the facility clothe yourself with humility because MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE of the United States Postal Service located I, Your Lord God, am stern with the ar- A message from the Senate by Mr. at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, Con- rogant but to the humble I show kind- Monahan, one of its clerks, announced necticut, as the ‘‘Barbara B. Kennedy Post Office Building’’. ness.’’ that the Senate has passed without Let us bow humbly under Your hand, H.R. 3011. An act to designate the facility amendment bills of the House of the O Lord, that in due time You may lift of the United States Postal Service located following titles: our heads high with joy. Humbly let us at 135 East Olive Avenue in Burbank, Cali- fornia, as the ‘‘Bob Hope Post Office Build- cast all our cares on You because You H.R. 1610. An act to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located ing’’. care for us now and forever. Amen. at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, The message also announced that the f Missouri, as the ‘‘Walt Disney Post Office Senate has passed bills of the following THE JOURNAL Building’’. titles in which the concurrence of the H.R. 1882. An act to designate the facility The SPEAKER. The Chair has exam- of the United States Postal Service located House is requested: ined the Journal of the last day’s pro- at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Or- S. 1405. An act to designate the facility of ceedings and announces to the House lando, Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur ‘Pappy’ Ken- the United States Postal Service located at his approval thereof. nedy Post Office’’. 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois, as the Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- H.R. 1883. An act to designate the facility ‘‘David Bybee Post Office Building’’. nal stands approved. of the United States Postal Service located S. 1590. An act to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, pursu- at 1601–1 Main Street in Jacksonville, Flor- at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, ant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote ida, as the ‘‘Eddie Mae Steward Post Office’’. H.R. 2075. An act to designate the facility Brooklyn, New York, as the ‘‘James E. Davis on agreeing to the Speaker’s approval of the United States Postal Service located Post Office Building’’. of the Journal. at 1905 West Blue Heron Boulevard in West S. 1659. An act to designate the facility of The SPEAKER. The question is on Palm Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Judge Edward the United States Postal Service located at the Speaker’s approval of the Journal. Rodgers Post Office Building’’. 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, as The question was taken; and the H.R. 2254. An act to designate the facility the ‘‘John G. Dow Post Office Building’’. Speaker announced that the ayes ap- of the United States Postal Service located S. 1718. An act to designate the facility of peared to have it. at 1101 Colorado Street in Boulder City, Ne- the United States Postal Service located at Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I object vada, as the ‘‘Bruce Woodbury Post Office 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, to the vote on the ground that a Building’’. Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’. quorum is not present and make the H.R. 2309. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located f point of order that a quorum is not at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Long Beach, Cali- present. fornia, as the ‘‘Stephen Horn Post Office ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8, Building’’. rule XX, further proceedings on this H.R. 2328. An act to designate the facility The SPEAKER. The Chair will enter- question will be postponed. of the United States Postal Service located tain ten 1-minutes on each sides. b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H10133 . VerDate jul 14 2003 01:00 Oct 31, 2003 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 7634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A30OC7.000 H30PT1 H10134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 30, 2003 BREAST CANCER AWARENESS has contributed to more than 2 million The Domestic Violence Prevention, MONTH breast cancer survivors in the United Education and Awareness Act would (Mr. BURGESS asked and was given States today. help bring much-needed attention to permission to address the House for 1 In Indianapolis, we have benefited by racial and ethnic minority and immi- minute and to revise and extend his re- the 2003 Komen Indianapolis Race for grant communities that are often over- looked and underserved by providing marks.) the Cure that registered 37,000 individ- grants to develop informational media Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as we uals and the BMW Ultimate Drive to outreach campaigns to address specific come to the close of October, I wanted donate one dollar on each mile driven communities that currently are under- to remind Members that October is des- during BMW test-drives. served. ignated as Breast Cancer Awareness We must continue to raise awareness and support legislation that will aid in It is our responsibility to give a voice Month. Each year in the United States, to those who cannot speak for them- breast cancer is diagnosed in more the prevention and eventual develop- ment of a cure for breast cancer. selves, and I urge my colleagues to sup- than 170,000 women. Several recent port these two legislative efforts. critical advances, sequencing of the f f human genome and the development of ECONOMIC GROWTH high throughput techniques for identi- TRIBUTE TO POLK COUNTY (Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and fying DNA-sequence variants, have ac- NATIVE was given permission to address the celerated the pace of research aimed at House for 1 minute and to revise and (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given preventing and curing breast cancer. extend her remarks.) permission to address the House for 1 Drugs such as Tamoxifen have helped Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. minute and to revise and extend his re- to successfully treat thousands of Speaker, tomorrow is Halloween, which marks.) Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise women with breast cancer. Even more means tricks and treats for every advanced, third-generation aromatase today to pay tribute to a man of honor American. Today, our economy re- and a dear friend, a man who touched inhibitors are challenging Tamoxifen, ceived a treat of its own, thanks to the current gold standard of care, and so many lives and dedicated himself to President Bush’s pro-jobs agenda and making Polk County, Florida, a better providing more satisfying results in economic growth tax cuts. For in- this field. place. stance, the economy grew at a stag- Charles Richardson rose from humble Groundbreaking research is yielding gering 7.2 percent in the third quarter, important findings on reducing the re- beginnings in Polk County and helped the fastest pace since 1984. In addition, to integrate what is now Bartow High currence of breast cancer in women consumer confidence is on the rise, who have previously been treated. This School. He began his political career thanks in large part to a more favor- on the Winter Haven City Commission, is all the more important, because with able job market and a belief that this breast cancer, unlike other malig- and rose to be, as a Republican, the trend will continue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Inter-Branch Norms Break Down: of Arms-For-Hostages, "Orderly Shutdowns," Presidential Impeachments, and Judicial "Coups"
    WHEN INTER-BRANCH NORMS BREAK DOWN: OF ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES, "ORDERLY SHUTDOWNS," PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENTS, AND JUDICIAL "COUPS" Peter M. Shanet INTRODUCTION . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 503 I. CHECKS AND BALANCES, DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY, AND INTER-BRANCH COOPERATION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 505 II. ATTACKING CHECKS AND BALANCES: FOUR EPISODES ............................................ 514 A. ELIMATING CONGRESS'S FOREIGN POLICY ROLE: THE IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL . .. .. .. .. .. 514 B. SHUTTING DOWN THE EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT: THE 1995 BUDGET SHOWDOWN ..................... 516 C. SUBJUGATING THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL: THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. .. .. .. 521 D. USURPING THE APPOINTMENTS POWER: THE STONEWALLING OF CLINTON JUDGES................. 526 III. THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST DELIBERATIVE LEGITIMACY AND ITS CAUSES ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... 533 IV. WHAT NEXT? . .... .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 540 INTRODUCTION Future historians of American government surely will take note of a remarkable series of domestic political events around the turn of the Twenty-First Century. Congress impeached a President for lying about a t Joseph S. Platt-Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University and Distinguished Service Professor Adjunct of Law and Public Policy, H. J. Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University. I am grateful to Cynthia Farina and Saikrishna Prakash fortheir comments on an earlier draft, and for reactions from Reed
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the 2000 Election: a Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2002 Voter's Intent and Its Discontents. Book Review Of: Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles that Decided the Presidency. by Abner Greene John Copeland Nagle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nagle, John Copeland, "Voter's Intent and Its Discontents. Book Review Of: Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles that Decided the Presidency. by Abner Greene" (2002). Constitutional Commentary. 535. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/535 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOTER'S INTENT AND ITS DISCONTENTS UNDERSTANDING THE 2000 ELECTION: A GUIDE TO THE LEGAL BATTLES THAT DECIDED THE PRESIDENCY. By Abner Greene.1 2001. Pp. 202. $19.95 John Copeland Nagle 2 It seems like everyone has written a book about the 2000 presidential election. I will content myself with reviewing one of them. The choice is easy. Abner Greene's Understanding the 2000 Election: A Guide to the Legal Battles That Decided the Presidency presents the definitive description of the legal battles that followed the closing of the polls on Tuesday, November 7. 3 Those battles culminated in the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore,4 a decision that has already become one of the most vili­ fied in American history.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Wrong with Bush V. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure It Never Happens Again Jamin B
    Maryland Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 7 What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again Jamin B. Rasking Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Jamin B. Rasking, What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again, 61 Md. L. Rev. 652 (2002) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol61/iss3/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSH V. GORE AND WHY WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN JAMIN B. RASKIN* I. Disenfranchisement as Remedy, Vote-Counting as H arm ................................................... 652 A. A Political Question Raised By a Candidate Without Standing ............................................ 653 B. And If It Had Been Gore v. Bush? ................... 660 C. Bush v. Gore: Hypocrisy and Reaction; Moral Expressivism and Legal Realism .................... 668 1. Moral Realism and Moral Expressivism ......... 670 2. Moral Realism and Legal Realism at Odds ...... 673 3. Hypocrites or Reactionaries ..................... 676 II. The People's Missing Right to Vote ..................... 679 A. The Missing Right to Vote in House and Senate Elections: Disenfranchisement in the District ....... 682 B. Territorial Subjects: The People of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam ............
    [Show full text]
  • Yet Another Article on Bush V. Gore
    Yet Another Article on Bush v. Gore RONALD D. ROTUNDA* Many legal and lay commentators have hurled unusually harsh criticism at the US. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Typical detractorsclaim that a bare majority of five Justices decided the case based on their political preference, not precedent. This article examines this opinion to see if these charges arejustified, and demonstrates that seven Justices (notfive), concluded that the Florida Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally. Moreover, their conclusion was hardly surprising, given a long line of precedent applying the equal protection and due process guarantees to prevent statesfrom manipulating voting results, diluting ballots based on geography, or counting them with no articulatedstandard or an ever-changing one. In addition, this article analyzes the additionalground for decision that three Justices embraced, and confirms that there is ample precedent empowering federal courts to reject state court rulings interpreting state law when those decisions are not reasonably anticipatedfrom priorlaw and do not rest on an adequate and independent state ground I. INTRODUCTION What is the connection, if any, between Bush v. Gorel-the case that held that the Florida Supreme Court's rules for recounting presidential election ballots violated the Constitution-and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? If you said "none," that would have been my choice as well. But that is not the way that Deborah Dosh of Flagstaff, Arizona sees things. In response to an article mourning the death of Barbara Olson, who was a passenger on the hijacked plane that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon,2 Ms. Dosh sent to the author, Ann Coulter, an email that said in part: I usually consider myself a good person, one who would never be happy at the demise of another human being, but, I have to say, that the first thing that came to mind when I heard about BarbaraOlson being on that [hiacked] plane [that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001], was, I hope Ted was with her.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of BUSH V. GORE* 82 Boston University Law Review 609 (2002)
    Links to other recent work by Professor Weinberg appear at the conclusion of this article. Symposium: Federal Courts and Electoral Politics WHEN COURTS DECIDE ELECTIONS: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BUSH V. GORE* 82 Boston University Law Review 609 (2002) ** Louise Weinberg INTRODUCTION: OF HARD BALL AND BASEBALL . .610 I. THE IRRELEVANCE OF BOTH BAKER V. CARR AND THE "PASSIVE VIRTUES" . 621 II. ELECTING WITHOUT AN ELECTION . 627 III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER TO DECIDE ELECTIONS . 635 IV. CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED REMEDIES . 640 V. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF SUPREME COURT POWER TO DECIDE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS . 657 VI. THE STAKES . 661 CONCLUSION . 664 The election [of the President] must be made either by some existing authority . or by the people themselves.—The two Existing authorities under the National Constitution would be the Legislative & Judiciary. The latter [I presume is] out of the question. —James Madison1 (2002) 82 B.U. L.Rev. 610 [I] would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power into the hands of seven or eight men. —George Mason2 [T]his Court should resist the temptation unnecessarily to resolve tangential legal * This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, Section on Federal Courts, Jan. 2002. A talk based on an earlier draft was presented at a faculty colloquium at the University of Texas School of Law, Oct. 2001. I should acknowledge valuable help from Stuart Benjamin, Mitch Berman, Steve Bickerstaff, Mark Gergen, Cal Johnson, Doug Laycock, Sandy Levinson, Jordan Steiker, Larry Yackle, and Ernie Young, and my editors, Howard Lipton and Chris Mooradian.
    [Show full text]
  • Bush V. Gore, Federalism, and the Distrust of Politics
    OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 62: 1781 (2001)] Bush v. Gore, Federalism, and the Distrust of Politics BRADLEY W. JOONDEPH* The Supreme Court’s per curiam decision in Bush v. Gore, sparked a considerable amount of criticism and discussion. During this debate, many scholars have argued that the Court’s decision was fundamentally incompatible with its previous federalism decisions. This article contends that this criticism is misplaced. It argues that while the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore decision embraced a novel and rather expansive understanding of equal protection that seems largely out of character for the Rehnquist Court, the Court’s decision to intervene and resolve the election dispute was not inconsistent with its general approach to constitutional federalism. This article argues that the contention that the Bush v. Gore decision is inconsistent with the core aspects of the Rehnquist Court’s federalism jurisprudence is overdrawn in two important respects. First, it argues that to describe the Rehnquist Court’s federalism decisions solely in terms of their solicitude for states political autonomy or “respecting states’ rights” is too simplistic. Secondly, it argues that the Bush v. Gore decision is fully consistent with previous federal jurisprudence decisions that the Court should resolve any questions of constitutional meaning. I. INTRODUCTION In Bush v. Gore,[1] the United States Supreme Court ended the legal dispute over the 2000 presidential election and effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush. In a per curiam
    [Show full text]
  • (Or at Least Second-To-The-Worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever Mark S
    Bush v. Gore: The Worst (or at least second-to-the-worst) Supreme Court Decision Ever Mark S. Brodin* “The presidential election process described by the original Constitution left it to each state to decide its electoral vote. No case, no precedent, no original understand- ing gave the Supreme Court the jurisdiction—the authority—to consider, much less condemn, the process that the Florida courts were following to decide Florida’s vote.”1 In the stiff competition for worst Supreme Court decision ever, two candi- dates stand heads above the others for the simple reason that they precipitated actual fighting wars in their times. By holding that slaves, as mere chattels, could not sue in court and could never be American citizens,2 and further inval- idating the Missouri Compromise, which had prohibited slavery in new territo- ries, Dred Scott v. Sandford3 charted the course to secession and Civil War four years later. By disenfranchising Florida voters and thereby appointing popular- vote loser George W. Bush as President, Bush v. Gore4 set in motion events which would lead to two wars,5 neither of which is successfully concluded over a decade later,6 as well as an unregulated greed-fest on Wall Street that contin- ues to unhinge our economic well-being.7 As Professor Laurence Tribe, one of * Professor and Lee Distinguished Scholar, Boston College Law School. 1 Anthony Lewis, A Supreme Difference, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, June 10, 2010, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/supreme-difference/?page=2. 2 As “beings of inferior order,” blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Dred Scott v.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Daze: from the Primaries Through the U.S. Supreme Court's
    Election Daze: From the Primaries Through the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Favoring George W. Bush Patrick Ryan Mohan The results of the 2000 presidential election divided the country along political party lines and generated tremendous acrimony among the supporters of each major party’s candidate. Rumors of disenfran- chisement ran rampant. Accusations ranged from tampering with ab- sentee ballots to racial discrimination at polling places. Irate voters claimed that their votes were credited to the wrong presidential candi- date. Registered voters in the Florida Panhandle claimed that they did not vote because the major television networks incorrectly declared Al Gore the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes while polling places in the western part of the state were still open. Although Florida was the focal point for these charges, many other states had similar problems. Nationwide, 4 to 6 million votes were improperly cast or lost, and therefore not counted (“Caltech-MIT” 1). Florida’s political and elec- toral processes were placed under a microscope only when it became apparent that its electoral votes would decide the next president. This essay scrutinizes the campaign tactics employed by supporters of Al Gore and George W. Bush beginning with the primary skirmishes through the 36-day battle for Florida’s 25 electoral votes. It also looks at how the print media and the television networks covered Election Day and its aftermath. It highlights common threads that surfaced during the primaries and weaved themselves right through the election’s final disposition in the courts, including public arguments for “doing what’s best for the country” while privately acting in a purely Chrestomathy: Annual Review of Undergraduate Research at the College of Charleston Volume 1, 2002: pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Overruling Democracy: the Supreme Court Vs. the American People
    Overruling Democracy Overruling Democracy The Supreme Court vs. The American People Jamin B.Raskin Routledge NEW YORK AND LONDON Published in 2003 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 www.routledge-ny.com Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE www.routledge.co.uk Copyright © 2003 by Taylor & Francis Books, Inc. Design and typography: Jack Donner Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Raskin, Jamin B. Overruling democracy: the Supreme Court versus the American people/ By Jamin B.Raskin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-93439-7 (hbk.) 1. United States. Supreme Court. 2. Political questions and judicial power— United States. I. Title. KF8748 .R33 2002 347.73'26—dc21 2002011222 ISBN 0-203-50921-8 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-57541-5 (Adobe eReader Format) To my mother and father CONTENTS Acknowledgments vi CHAPTER ONE The Supreme Court and America’s 1 Democracy Deficit CHAPTER TWO The Court Supreme 11 Bush v.
    [Show full text]
  • How Should We Think About Bush V. Gore, 34 Loy
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 34 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 2002 2002 How Should We Think ba out Bush v. Gore Erwin Chemerinsky University of Southern California Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Erwin Chemerinsky, How Should We Think about Bush v. Gore, 34 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 1 (2002). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol34/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How Should We Think About Bush v. Gore? Erwin Chemerinsky "Honk if you've heard enough about Bush v. Gore"-that's how Larry Tribe begins his comment in the November 2001 Harvard Law Review about the case.1 It would be an understandable reaction at this point. Over a dozen books and dozens of law review articles about the case have already been published, with more coming out each week. Last spring, I declined some invitations to participate in symposia on Bush v. Gore2 for fear that I had little left to say about the case. Yet now, a year-and-a-half after the decision, seems an important time to be discussing the decision. Largely this is because of the wonderful presenters at this symposium, but also because now it seems, with even a relatively short period of time for reflection, there is still so much to discuss.
    [Show full text]
  • The Founding Fathers, Pop Culture, and Constitutional Law
    THE FOUNDING FATHERS, POP CULTURE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Applying innovative interpretive strategies drawn from cultural studies, this book considers the perennial question of law and politics: what role do the founding fathers play in legitimizing contemporary judicial review? Rather than promulgating further theories that attempt to legitimize either judicial activism or restraint, this work uses narrative analysis, popular culture, parody, and queer theory to better understand and to reconstitute the traditional relationship between fatherhood and judicial review. Unlike traditional, top-down public law analyses that focus on elite decision making by courts, legislatures, or executives, this volume explores the representation of law and legitimacy in various sites of popular culture. To this end, soap operas, romance novels, tabloid newspapers, reality television, and coming out narratives provide alternative ways to understand the relationship between paternal power and law from the bottom up. In this manner, constitutional discourse can begin to be transformed from a dreary parsing of scholarly and juristic argot into a vibrant discussion with points of access and understanding for all. For Kate The Founding Fathers, Pop Culture, and Constitutional Law Who’s Your Daddy? SUSAN BURGESS Ohio University, USA © Susan Burgess 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without
    [Show full text]
  • Bush V. Gore--A Response to Dean Belsky
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 37 Issue 3 Spring 2002 Bush v. Gore--A Response to Dean Belsky Steven K. Balman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven K. Balman, Bush v. Gore--A Response to Dean Belsky, 37 Tulsa L. Rev. 777 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Balman: Bush v. Gore--A Response to Dean Belsky RESPONSE BUSH V. GORE-A RESPONSE TO DEAN BELSKY Steven K. Balman* "Let me tell you about Florida politicians. I make them out of whole cloth, just like a tailor makes a suit. I get their name in the newspaper. I get them some publicity and get them on the ballot. Then after the election, we count the votes. And if they don't turn out right, we recount them. And recount them again. Until they do." -Edward G. Robinson to Humphrey Bogart in Key Largo' I. INTRODUCTION Dean Martin H. Belsky wrote "Bush v. Gore-A Critique of Critiques" 2 before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. When Belsky wrote his article on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore,3 the twin towers of the World Trade Center were still standing, and the press still called George W.
    [Show full text]