DOCSLIB.ORG

Overruling Democracy: the Supreme Court Vs. the American People

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Gore and the Judicial Assault on Democracy 29 CHAPTER THREE Reading Democracy Out The Citizen Has No Right to Vote and the Majority Doesn’t Rule 66 CHAPTER FOUR Unequal Protection The Supreme Court’s Racial Double Standard in Redistricting 88 CHAPTER FIVE America’s Signature Exclusion How Democracy Is Made Safe for the Two-Party System 114 CHAPTER SIX “Arrogant Orwellian Bureaucrats” How America’s Electoral-Industrial Complex Controls Our Political Debates and Gerrymanders Your Mind 139 CHAPTER SEVEN Schooling for Democracy 166 CHAPTER EIGHT Democracy and the Corporation 193 CHAPTER NINE Unflagging Patriotism The People, the Flag, and the Constitution 216 CHAPTER TEN Democracy Rising Overruling the Court, Rerighting America 235 Notes 276 Index ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In my journey toward becoming a scholar of constitutional democracy, I have had the benefit of extraordinary teachers along the way. None was more powerful in her influence over me than the late Professor Judith N. Shklar (1928–1992), with whom I studied from my first semester as a freshman at Harvard College in 1979 until I graduated in 1983. I then taught with her as a teaching fellow in political theory courses between 1984 and 1987 when I was a student at Harvard Law School. I learned much from a masterful English teacher named Missy Holland and the brilliant scholar of international affairs, Stanley Hoffmann. But, for my purposes, Mrs. Shklar was simply in a class by herself. Mrs. Shklar embodied the best that American radicalism, liberalism and conservatism have to offer. The radical side of Mrs. Shklar linked the possibility of justice on earth to the strength of political democracy. She argued that, in the struggle for justice against power, people must be given the democratic right and space to speak for themselves. She rejected the conservative argument that law-obeying people should be presumed to be content with traditional hierarchies and inequalities. As she put it in a book called The Faces of lnjustice (1990, p. 124): “Tradition is often nothing but the evidence of silence.” It is political democracy and the struggle for it that give voice in history to popular aspirations for greater justice. But Mrs. Shklar did not glorify the victims of injustice. In this sense, she articulated with much greater subtlety the point that contemporary conservatives have been trying to make in the ongoing backlash against “political correctness.” Her point was that the experience of being discriminated against or oppressed does not necessarily instill moral virtue in victims. Many victims turn into bitter and tyrannical people. Some turn around and become oppressors themselves. (Think of victims of child abuse who become child abusers.) The reason that we oppose official tyranny and cruelty is not that the victims are more virtuous than everyone vii else but that everyone has a right to be free, no one has a right to oppress other people, and tyranny generates a paralyzing fear that undermines the capacity for good citizenship and collective social progress. At the heart of things, Mrs. Shklar was a liberal, and hers was a liberalism born of the appalling catastrophes of the twentieth century, which were all too personal for her. She believed in what she called a “liberalism of fear.” The freedom and security of citizens must be guarded against injustice, arbitrary action and cruelty. Sovereign power must be divided up and controlled through the checking and balancing of powers, as James Madison argued. The structural accomplishments of the American Framers were profoundly important, Mrs. Shklar thought, and she castigated snobbish scholars who treated European political theorists as inherently superior to American theorists even though our democratic institutions have been far more resilient and successful than many of their European counterparts. As a liberal, Mrs. Shklar understood that the requirements of justice are a moving target in history since we must listen to the victims of injustice to determine what justice requires. We can keep faith with justice only by way of a supple and open democracy that grants people rights of effective political representation and self-presentation. Democracy without liberalism will undermine freedom, it is well understood, but liberalism without democracy will undermine justice. No democracy without liberalism, no liberalism without democracy. A day does not go by when I do not think of Mrs. Shklar, who died in 1992, but I hope that this book stands up for progressive liberal democracy in a way that would have made her happy (even if she would have, no doubt, argued with every page). At Harvard Law School, where I turned my attention to how the American Constitution structures American democracy, I studied with some of the great legal minds of the age: the towering Laurence Tribe, my constitutional law professor who continues to have a profound effect on my thinking about the Supreme Court; Duncan Kennedy, the intellectual leader of critical legal studies, who taught me to train a piercing skepticism on claims of logical necessity in law; the great legal historian Morton Horwitz; Randall Kennedy, a scholar of surpassing moral and political insight; Daniel Meltzer, whose work on federal courts was brilliantly illuminating; the irrepressible Alan Dershowitz; Susan Estrich, whose class on labor law ignited an abiding interest in the subject; and Gerald Frug, who brought a passionate democratic intensity to the study of local government law. They are obviously responsible for nothing in this book, viii but I will always cherish their intellectual examples and their support over the years. Before reentering academia, I practiced law as an assistant attorney general in Massachusetts and then as general counsel of the National Rainbow Coalition. In the former post, I handled a number of cases relating to constitutional law and election law and learned much from my boss, Attorney General James Shannon, Alice Daniel, who headed the Government Bureau, and Assistant Attorney Generals Tom Barnico, Richard Brunell, and Reed Witherby. Then, as the lawyer for the Rainbow Coalition, I became fascinated with the way that election law structures political conflict. I learned much about how American politics works from Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Minyon Moore, Steve Cobble and Frank Watkins, and became friends with my contemporary, Jesse L.Jackson, Jr., now a congressman from the Second Congressional District of Illinois, whose wonderful book, A More Perfect Union (2001), is far more sweeping than this one in calling for constitutional changes as ambitious as a right to housing, a right to employment, and a right to progressive income taxation. May his career flourish. I became a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law (WCL) in 1990 and also had the pleasure of serving as associate dean for several years under two great and inspiring deans, Elliott Milstein and Claudio Grossman, who have both been indispensably supportive of my work. All of my colleagues have been helpful. Some have been integrally involved in the development of my ideas about democracy and the Constitution and have in some cases read drafts of these chapters. I want to thank Muneer Ahmad, Padideh Ala’i, Kenneth Anderson, Jonathan Baker, Susan Bennett, Pamela Bridgewater, Susan Carle, Angela Davis, Robert Dinerstein, Darren Hutchinson, Peter Jaszi, Candace Kovacic-Fleischer, Jim May, Mark Niles, Diane Orentlicher, Nancy Polikoff, Andrew Popper, Paul Rice, Jim Salzman, Herman Schwartz, Ann Shalleck, Brenda Smith, Michael Tigar, Robert Vaughn, Leti Volpp, and Rick Wilson. I owe a special debt to my colleague and codirector of WCL’s Program on Law and Government, Tom Sargentich; to my friend and codirector of the Marshall-Brennan Fellowship Program, Steve Wermiel; to my unflappable assistant, Leslie Scott; and to Michelle Carhart, Maryam Ahranjani, Moira Lee, Fahryn Hoffmann and Catherine Beane, the team of people who kept the Marshall-Brennan Fellowship Program humming even when my office door was locked. As a law professor, I have been able to represent, consult and work with many causes and people who have been important to me, including the Service Employees International Union, Greenpeace, Ross Perot, ix Clay Mulford, Russ Verney, Global Exchange, Students United Against Sweat-shops, Ralph Nader, the American Civil Liberties Union, students at Blair High School in Montgomery County and many other high school students across the country.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1996 Republican Party Primary Election March 12, 1996
    Texas Secretary of State Antonio O. Garza, Jr. Race Summary Report Unofficial Election Tabulation 1996 Republican Party Primary Election March 12, 1996 President/Vice President Precincts Reporting 8,179 Total Precincts 8,179 Percent Reporting100.0% Vote Total % of Vote Early Voting % of Early Vote Delegates Lamar Alexander 18,615 1.8% 11,432 5.0% Patrick J. 'Pat' Buchanan 217,778 21.4% 45,954 20.2% Charles E. Collins 628 0.1% 153 0.1% Bob Dole 566,658 55.6% 126,645 55.8% Susan Ducey 1,123 0.1% 295 0.1% Steve Forbes 130,787 12.8% 27,206 12.0% Phil Gramm 19,176 1.9% 4,094 1.8% Alan L. Keyes 41,697 4.1% 5,192 2.3% Mary 'France' LeTulle 651 0.1% 196 0.1% Richard G. Lugar 2,219 0.2% 866 0.4% Morry Taylor 454 0.0% 124 0.1% Uncommitted 18,903 1.9% 4,963 2.2% Vote Total 1,018,689 227,120 Voter Registration 9,698,506 % VR Voting 10.5 % % Voting Early 2.3 % U. S. Senator Precincts Reporting 8,179 Total Precincts 8,179 Percent Reporting100.0% Vote Total % of Vote Early Voting % of Early Vote Phil Gramm - Incumbent 837,417 85.0% 185,875 83.9% Henry C. (Hank) Grover 71,780 7.3% 17,312 7.8% David Young 75,976 7.7% 18,392 8.3% Vote Total 985,173 221,579 Voter Registration 9,698,506 % VR Voting 10.2 % % Voting Early 2.3 % 02/03/1998 04:16 pm Page 1 of 45 Texas Secretary of State Antonio O.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTING the Disorder the CFR Is the Deep State Powerhouse Undoing and Remaking Our World
    DEEP STATE DIRECTING THE Disorder The CFR is the Deep State powerhouse undoing and remaking our world. 2 by William F. Jasper The nationalist vs. globalist conflict is not merely an he whole world has gone insane ideological struggle between shadowy, unidentifiable and the lunatics are in charge of T the asylum. At least it looks that forces; it is a struggle with organized globalists who have way to any rational person surveying the very real, identifiable, powerful organizations and networks escalating revolutions that have engulfed the planet in the year 2020. The revolu- operating incessantly to undermine and subvert our tions to which we refer are the COVID- constitutional Republic and our Christian-style civilization. 19 revolution and the Black Lives Matter revolution, which, combined, are wreak- ing unprecedented havoc and destruction — political, social, economic, moral, and spiritual — worldwide. As we will show, these two seemingly unrelated upheavals are very closely tied together, and are but the latest and most profound manifesta- tions of a global revolutionary transfor- mation that has been under way for many years. Both of these revolutions are being stoked and orchestrated by elitist forces that intend to unmake the United States of America and extinguish liberty as we know it everywhere. In his famous “Lectures on the French Revolution,” delivered at Cambridge University between 1895 and 1899, the distinguished British historian and states- man John Emerich Dalberg, more com- monly known as Lord Acton, noted: “The appalling thing in the French Revolution is not the tumult, but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization.
    [Show full text]
  • BOSTON Is More Than a Running Film. It Is a Timeless Story About Triumph Over Adversity for Runner and Non-Runner Alike. Film Sy
    BOSTON is more than a running film. It is a timeless story about triumph over adversity for runner and non-runner alike. Film Synopsis BOSTON is the first ever feature-length documentary film about the world’s most legendary run- ning race – the Boston Marathon. The film chronicles the story of the iconic race from its humble origins with only 15 runners to the present day. In addition to highlighting the event as the oldest annually contested marathon in the world, the film showcases many of the most important moments in more than a century of the race’s history. from a working man’s challenge welcoming foreign athletes and eventually women bec me the stage for manyThe Bostonfirsts and Marathon in no small evolved part the event that paved the way for the modern into a m world-classarathon and event, mass participatory sports. Following the tragic events of. The 2013, Boston BOSTON Marathon a the preparations and eventual running of the, 118th Boston Marathon one year later when runners and community gather once again for what will be the most meaningful raceshowcases of all. for , together The production was granted exclusive documentary rights from the Boston Athletic Association to produce the film and to use the Association’s extensive archive of video, photos and memorabilia. Production Credits: Boston is presented by John Hancock Financial, in association with the Kennedy/Marshall Com- pany. The film is directed by award winning filmmaker Jon Dunham, well known for his Spirit of the Marathon films, and produced by Academy Award-nominee Megan Williams and Eleanor Bingham Miller.
    [Show full text]
  • Vitale Not Just Dry Bones Provides Scholarship
    _ I OBSERVER Friday, November 10, 1995* Vol. XXVII No. 54 INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER SERVING NOTRE DAME AND SAINT MARY'S ■ F aculty S enate Last summer, Notre Dame student Jenny Malloy: Future Richtsmeier assisted Professor Susan S h erid a n in th e unearthing of ancient looks bright for bones in Israel as part of the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program. The ND programs remains were studied By GWENDOLYN NORGLE and for information on the cultural profile of the Assistant News Editor Byzantine civilization. RUSSELL WILLIAMS The program was News Writer founded by Sheridan to provide undergrad­ University President Father Edward Malloy uates with experience addressed the Faculty Senate Wednesday in the anthropological night, and a number of issues topped his field of study. Photos provided by Jenny discussion. Richtsmeier Malloy responded to a number of questions concerning the progress of the Colloquy, the selection of the Provost, financial aid, staff salaries, and graduate education that were submitted to him by the Senate prior to the meeting. In his opening remarks to this discussion, Malloy said, “There are reasons to be opti­ mistic in looking toward our future.” Although he pointed out a number of these reasons for optimism, Malloy described the lack of financial aid as a significant problem. Not just dry bones “Financial aid looms very, very large to me,” he said. “We hope to be able to build our financial aid resources. We have a dual strat­ Research program allows ND student egy to continue as aggressively as we can to solicit funds." to spend summer in Israel studying Malloy mentioned tuition increases as another one of the main financial issues that the remains of a Byzantine culture the University must confront.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [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]
  • CRISIS of PURPOSE in the IVY LEAGUE the Harvard Presidency of Lawrence Summers and the Context of American Higher Education
    Institutions in Crisis CRISIS OF PURPOSE IN THE IVY LEAGUE The Harvard Presidency of Lawrence Summers and the Context of American Higher Education Rebecca Dunning and Anne Sarah Meyers In 2001, Lawrence Summers became the 27th president of Harvard Univer- sity. Five tumultuous years later, he would resign. The popular narrative of Summers’ troubled tenure suggests that a series of verbal indiscretions created a loss of confidence in his leadership, first among faculty, then students, alumni, and finally Harvard’s trustee bodies. From his contentious meeting with the faculty of the African and African American Studies Department shortly af- ter he took office in the summer of 2001, to his widely publicized remarks on the possibility of innate gender differences in mathematical and scientific aptitude, Summers’ reign was marked by a serious of verbal gaffes regularly reported in The Harvard Crimson, The Boston Globe, and The New York Times. The resignation of Lawrence Summers and the sense of crisis at Harvard may have been less about individual personality traits, however, and more about the context in which Summers served. Contestation in the areas of university governance, accountability, and institutional purpose conditioned the context within which Summers’ presidency occurred, influencing his appointment as Harvard’s 27th president, his tumultuous tenure, and his eventual departure. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. You may reproduce this work for non-commercial use if you use the entire document and attribute the source: The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the THIRD CIRCUIT No. 06-2241 MARAKAY J. ROGERS, Esquire, Candidate for Governo
    PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 06-2241 MARAKAY J. ROGERS, Esquire, Candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania; THE GREEN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA, c/o Paul Teese, Chair; THE CONSTITUTION PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA; KEN V. KRAWCHUK; HAGAN SMITH, Appellants. v. THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., Attorney General of Pennsylvania; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, c/o Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania; GOVERNOR EDWARD G. RENDELL; PEDRO A. CORTES, Secretary of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 06-cv-00066 District Judge: Hon. John E. Jones, III Argued on July 10, 2006 Panel Rehearing Granted November 3, 2006 Before: SMITH, ALDISERT, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 3, 2006) O P I N I O N Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire (Argued) 301 South High Street P. O. Box 3231 West Chester, PA 19381-3231 Counsel for Appellants Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Esquire Attorney General Howard G. Hopkirk, Esquire (Argued) Senior Deputy Attorney General John G. Knorr, III, Esquire Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Appellate Litigation Section Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Appellees ROTH, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, a group of minor political parties and minor party nominees for state-wide office,1 challenged the constitutionality of Section 2911 of the Pennsylvania election code, 25 PA. CONS. STAT. § 2911(b), as applied to minor political parties and their candidates. They moved for a 1Plaintiffs are Marakay Rogers, Esq., the Green Party candidate for Governor in the November 2006 general election; the Green Party of Pennsylvania; Hagan Smith, the Constitution Party candidate for Governor; the Constitution Party of Pennsylvania; and Ken V.
    [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]
  • TNSR and Discusses the Joys and Pains of the Review Process, Giving Some Advice for Both Reviewers and Those Submitting Their Work for Review
    ISSN 2576-1021 ISSN 2576-1153 Print: Online: Texas National Security Review CLARITY & QUAGMIRE Volume 2 Issue 2 MASTHEAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Staff: The Foundation Publisher: Managing Editor: 04 Reviewing Blues Ryan Evans Megan G. Oprea, PhD Assistant Editor: Francis J. Gavin Autumn Brewington Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editors: William Inboden, PhD Galen Jackson, PhD Van Jackson, PhD Stephen Tankel, PhD The Scholar 10 When Do Leaders Change Course? Theories of Success and the American Withdrawal Editorial Board: from Beirut, 1983–1984 Alexandra T. Evans and A. Bradley Potter Chair, Editorial Board: Editor-in-Chief: 40 How to Think About Nuclear Crises Francis J. Gavin, PhD William Inboden, PhD Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald Robert J. Art, PhD Beatrice Heuser, PhD Patrick Porter, PhD Richard Betts, PhD Michael C. Horowitz, PhD Thomas Rid, PhD John Bew, PhD Richard H. Immerman, PhD Joshua Rovner, PhD Nigel Biggar, PhD Robert Jervis, PhD Brent E. Sasley, PhD The Strategist Philip Bobbitt, JD, PhD Colin Kahl, PhD Elizabeth N. Saunders, PhD Hal Brands, PhD Jonathan Kirshner, PhD Kori Schake, PhD 68 After the Responsible Stakeholder, What? Debating America’s China Strategy Joshua W. Busby, PhD James Kraska, SJD Michael N. Schmitt, DLitt Hal Brands and Zack Cooper Robert Chesney, JD Stephen D. Krasner, PhD Jacob N. Shapiro, PhD Eliot Cohen, PhD Sarah Kreps, PhD Sandesh Sivakumaran, PhD 82 Crossroads: Counter-terrorism and the Internet Audrey Kurth Cronin, PhD Melvyn P. Leffler, PhD Sarah Snyder, PhD Brian Fishman Theo Farrell, PhD Fredrik Logevall, PhD Bartholomew Sparrow, PhD 102 The End of the End of History: Reimagining U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • P.O. Box 9 SECRETARIAT
    of the United States of Afl«fc»!SSlOK P.O. Box 9 SECRETARIAT Russell J. Verney, Chairman TEL: (972) 450-8800 Jim Maogta, Secretary Pat Benjamin, Vke Chair FAX: (972) 450-8821 Mike Morris, Treasurer January 12, 19* Michael Marinelli, Esq. Office of die General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E. Street NW Washington, D.C. 20463 Re: Executive Committee of the Reform Party of the United States as the National Committee of a Political Party Dear Mr. Marinelli, The Reform Party of the United States of America ("Reform Party, USA'*) requests an advisory opinion seeking Commission recognition of its Executive Committee as the national committee of a political party. It also requests the Commission recognize each state Reform Party as a state committee of a political party. The Reform Party, USA, can trace its origins to 1992 and the activities of most constituent state parties to a period beginning September, 1995, when in response to numerous long-standing requests from third-party advocates, efforts to establish a new national political party began. To this end, registration and petition drives and organizing efforts were conducted in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The resulting parties, together with philosophically aligned pre-existing state political parties, joined together with Reform Party members from across the country in Long Beach, California and Valley Forge, Pennsylvania to nominate a presidential and vice-presidential candidate for the 1996 general election. During the same year, Reform Parties in thirteen states obtained ballot access for candidates for other federal offices. Following the 1996 election, in which the Reform Parties presidential and vice- presidential candidates obtained 8.4% of the popular vote, the Reform Parties agreed to conduct a national meeting to further the process of party development.
    [Show full text]