Constitutional Law Paper I

Aristotle Wurtz
Article III of the Constitution states “that the judicial power of the federal courts extends only to cases and
controversies which arise under the Constitution, federal laws of the United States, and its treaties. This remains the
overlying principle by which the courts determine whether or not an issue is justiciable, and has led to the
establishment of justiciability doctrines.”1 Even if an issue is justiciable, the Supreme Court has the ability to deny
judicial review on issues that fall under the Political Question Doctrine. The principal involving political questions
has been used as a rationale for avoiding making judgments on certain controversial issues that are political in
nature. “On December 12, 2000, for the first time in American history, the Supreme Court decided who would be
the next President of the United States. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court concluded that it violated equal
protection to count the uncounted votes in Florida without clear, uniform standards.”2 There has been a great deal of
controversy and dispute as to whether the Supreme Court had the ability to take the issue to court and whether it
should have in the first place. The primary question surrounds the question of whether Bush v. Gore was justiciable.
In order for a case to be heard by the federal court the case must meet various standards in order to be determined
justiciable. When looking at the specific case, the Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken the case and it didn’t have
the authority to in the first place. Bush v. Gore was not justiciable and it certainly involved a political question, and
as a result the decision in the case has changed the role and jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court ever since. In
order to illustrate that Bush v Gore wasn’t justiciable and that is has changed the role and extension of oversight of
the US Supreme Court, we must first take a detailed look at the specific case and its background, secondly, examine
the requirements for a case to be considered justiciable, third, apply the requirements to the actual case to determine
whether or not it was justiciable, and lastly, look at the implications and changing role the US Supreme Court now
has as a result.
On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, “the Florida Division of Elections
reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush.
Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than ‘one-half of a percent…of the votes cast’, an automatic
machine recount was conducted under Section 102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed
1
Manheim, K. (n.d.). Justiciability Doctrine. LLS | Course Web Pages | TWEN Login and Course Add/Drop Instructions. Retrieved
February 21, 2011, from http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/justdoc-t.htm
2
Chemerinsky, E. (2001). Bush v. Gore Was Not Justiciable. Duke Law Faculty Scholarship., 1(1), 1093-1112. Retrieved February 20,
2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
1
Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin”.3 On November 10, when the machine recount
finished in every county except one the margin lessened to 327 votes. With such a close margin, Vice President Al
Gore sought manual recounts in certain districts and counties including, Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-
Decade Counties. This action was in alignment with Florida’s election protest provisions. Gore requested recounts
in counties that traditionally vote Democratic, but didn’t request any recounts in counties that were predominantly
Republican. Whether this was coincidental or purposeful is up for interpretation. The dispute concerned the
deadline for local county canvassing boards for their submission of returns to the Secretary of State. The deadline
was set at November 14 in the statute. The Florida Circuit Court allowed the Secretary of State Katherine Harris to
use discretion in allowing any late amended returns. Harris set criteria by which she would determine whether or not
she would accept late filings, but none of the counties were able to fit her criteria. The proposal to extend the
deadline for those counties was denied by the secretary. She declared on November 26, 2000, that Bush was the
winner. 4
On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission confirmed the results and outcome of the
election by declaring George Bush the winner of Florida. Bush was to be awarded the 25 electoral votes, which
would make him the winner of the overall Presidential election. Vice President Gore was obviously disappointed
and disgusted with this outcome. Therefore, he filed a complaint on November 27 in Leon County Circuit Court
contesting this confirmation by the Commission. Gore “sought relief pursuant to Section 102.168(3) (c), which
provides that ‘receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or
place in doubt the result of the election’ shall be grounds for a contest”. After the circuit court denied Gore the
option, saying he failed to meet the burden of proof, Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which
eventually sent the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court overruled the decision of the
secretary. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the circuit courts. It confirmed the denial
of Gore’s challenge to the results in Nassau County and Palm Beach County Canvassing Boards that the 3.300
ballots were not ‘legal votes’. With that being said, it held he
3
Mate, M., & Wright, M. (2006). Bush v. Gore and the Micro-foundations of Public Support for the Supreme Court.. Conference
Papers -- American Political Science Association, 4(8), 1-35. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
4
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
2
“Satisfied his burden of proof under Section 102.168(3) (c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade
County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a
vote for president (“undervotes”). Noting the closeness of the election, the court explained that “on this
record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to
place the results of this election in doubt.” 5
The Florida Supreme Court stated that a legal vote is where there is clear intention of the voter’s intent. Thus, a
manual hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County was declared and the court said that it had the
ability to order the supervisor of elections and canvassing boards to do so. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney filed
an emergency application to prevent this mandate by the Florida Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted
the application and treated it as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which it granted. 6
The US Supreme Court first requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court on their decision in
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board.7 After it received clarification, it halted the recount.
“In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots
was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no
alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring
justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II of the Constitution by
misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.” 8
The relevant law within the case included the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: “No State shall…
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. In addition, Article II, 1 cl. 2, specified
the number of electors and the manner in which those electors are selected in each state: “Each State shall appoint,
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” The importance of this clause is that
solely gives powers to the Florida state legislature. Lastly, the critical statute was 3 U.S.C. 5, which stated, “If any
5
Court, S. (2000, December 13). CONTESTING THE VOTE; Text of Supreme Court Ruling on Bush v. Gore Florida Recount Case.. New
York Times, p. 27. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
6
7
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved
February 21, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Palm_Beach_County_Canvassing_Board
8
3
State shall have provided … for its final determination of … the appointment of all or any of the electors of such
State…at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors such determination…shall be
conclusive”. Because the electors were scheduled to meet on December 18, the “safe harbor” deadline was to be set
at December 12, which was less than a day after the oral arguments finished. The Court’s decision was based on
two important questions:
“1) were the recounts, as they were being conducted, constitutional? 2) If the Recounts were
unconstitutional, what is the remedy?” 9
Their respective voting decisions and opinions are as follows: a) 7 justices said the Equal Protection Clause was
violated due to different methods and standards of counting in different counties, b) 5 justices came to the
conclusion that December 12 was the deadline for recounts, c) 3 justices believed the Florida Supreme Court went
against the intent of the Florida legislature. The decision led to a confirmation of Katherine Harris’s previous
certification of George Bush as the winner.10 Gore was hoping that the remedy could include a recount that was done
properly and formally, but it was halted altogether. The decision was final, but the debate continues. Most
importantly, should the U.S. Supreme Court have ever heard the case in the first place?
The question still remains as to whether the Supreme Court was justified in taking the case. The U.S.
Constitution limits federal courts to hearing nine classes of cases, and the Supreme Court has created new
restrictions to what cases it can hear, which includes the judiciability of the issue. The justiciability doctrines are
intended to help find out whether a case or controversy exists under Article III. The first standard or doctrine that
cases need to meet is “that they can’t seek an advisory opinion”. Article III prevents abstract or hypothetical
questions from entering the court, which would require advisory opinions. The US Supreme Court can’t render
opinions when nobody before the court has suffered actually injury, with exceptions being injunctions and
declaratory judgments. This first doctrine prevents the courts from being involved in the political process and
reinforces the separation of powers. A case before the court must consist of an actual dispute between two adverse
litigants, which will produce some sort of controversial effect. Another doctrine is that the plaintiff must have
standing. He or she must have a large stake in the case, and the rights that were violated or the injuries suffered
9
10
4
must refer to the plaintiff. There must be an ‘injury in fact”, which is not only concrete but the action that is
challenged within the case must be the “cause in fact” of the injury. This connection must be a direct one between
the plaintiff and the defendant, with no third party interference. In addition, the injury must be redressable through
court but doesn’t require economic harm and eventual compensation for that harm.
Other standards in order for a case to be determined justiciable include mootness and ripeness. Mootness
has to do with whether the actual controversy is ongoing and existent. The controversy must continue to exist even
after the filing of the case, and the litigant must maintain an ongoing stake. “A case will be declared moot if the
defendant dies during a criminal trial, if the plaintiff dies during a civil action and the action does not survive the
death (usually by statute), and if the parties settle between themselves before a final judgment is entered. In these
situations the issues are no longer redressable”. 11 With that being said, there are exceptions that exist to the
mootness doctrine. These include where secondary injuries exist that can be addressed, cases involving a wrong that
is capable of being repeated that may lead to evasion of review, and in a class action suit.12 Cases also must be ripe
and ready for adjudication. This means that the injuries can’t be too speculative and must have a probability of
occurring. When the case isn’t sufficiently concrete, there must be reasonable probability of specific harm, and the
court has to believe that the statute is likely to be enforced.
The last two standards for a case to be justiciable are that the case must not be barred by the 11 th
Amendment and can’t involve a political question. The 11th Amendment prevents most types of damage suits against
a state. It specifically bars any federal suit “against any one of the states by citizens of another state, or by citizens or
subjects of any foreign state”.13 Lastly, the case can’t present an issue committed to another branch of the federal
government. The Constitution designates certain issues to be solved by the different branches of government, and
issues sometimes are best solved through the political system of accountability. The Court may see the issue as
lacking judicially manageable standards, which would require it to defer it to lower courts or the legislative and
executive branches.
11
12
13
JUSTICIABILITY. (n.d.). Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas University, College . Retrieved February 21, 2011, from
http://www2.sfasu.edu/polisci/Abel/ConstitutionalLawII/Justiciability.htm
5
After applying the Justiciability Doctrines, it reveals that the US Supreme Court should have never taken
the case of Bush v. Gore in the first place. “For all the discussion about the decision, no one seemed to pay much
attention to whether the Court properly had the legal authority to hear the case. Most likely, this is because
justiciability doctrines are too complicated and unfamiliar to the public. Perhaps too, this is because neither of the
parties raised justiciability issues in their briefs”. 14 Regardless of the reasons, the court’s failure to raise the issue
goes against its intention and nature.
The first reason why the case wasn’t justiciable is that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney lacked
standing to raise the claims of Florida voters. They argued that Florida voters were denied equal protection when
the votes were counted in a non-uninformed way with different standards in the various counties. Bush and Cheney
didn’t suffer any injury, and were even unable to vote in Florida. Thus, they didn’t have standing to raise the rights
of Florida voters. Even if there was some validity to the idea that Florida voters were denied equal protection
because of discrimination among voters and different standards for counting ballots, Bush and Cheney had no right
to be the plaintiff in the case. The only legitimate possibility would be to have a Florida voter be represented in the
case. If there was any equal protection claim, it was that one ballot of a voter be disallowed while another identical
one be counted. The Supreme Court has long held that the requirement for standing is based on Article III, which
limits federal courts to deciding cases and controversies. Therefore, standing is jurisdictional and courts must raise
it on their own. “In no way was Bush treated any differently from Gore during the counting process. There was no
reason to believe that the counting procedure would treat ballots for Bush any differently from ballots for Gore” 15
Furthermore, Bush never contended that his was treated unequally or that he was being discriminated against. The
Supreme Court has declared in the past that “the ‘irreducible minimum’ of Article III’s limit on judicial power is a
requirement that a party ‘show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury”. 16 Bush didn’t
personally suffer from any discrimination. In fact, the Supreme court held in United States v. Hays that a “plaintiff
[who] resides in a radically gerrymandered district…has standing to challenge the legislature’s action, but a plaintiff
who resides outside the district fails to suffer ‘the injury our standing doctrine requires.” 17 Thus, in U.S. v. Hays, the
14
15
“above”
16
“above”
17
6
Supreme Court said a plaintiff outside the district couldn’t raise claims of other voters, but in Bush v. Gore this was
permitted. There are exceptions where one can achieve third party standing. Generally, this isn’t allowed, but the
exceptions must be tended to. First, a person may assert the rights of a third party if there are substantial obstacles
for the party to assert their rights, and the advocate must effectively represent the interests of the third party as well.
This doesn’t apply based on two reasons. One is that there wasn’t any obstacles for Florida voters to bring their own
claim, and the other is that it isn’t certain whether Bush would represent the interests of all the voters. Another
exception is when there is a close relationship between the advocate and the third party. This can’t be applied as
well because there can be no observed close relationship between bush and the Florida voters. This case can be seen
as step contrary to what the Supreme Court has said about standing: that it’s “founded in concern about the proper—
and properly limited role-of the courts in a democratic society”. 18
The second reason why the case wasn’t justiciable is that it wasn’t ripe for review. The counting was yet to
occur and be finalized. This doctrine is designed to prevent matters that are premature for review. If the issue isn’t
ripe for review, it will require speculation and opinions on something that may never occur. Even if we assume that
Bush had standing, that doesn’t mean the case was ripe for review. The issue surrounds on whether the counting of
votes denies equal protection. This can’t be discovered or acknowledged until all the votes are counted. “The
Supreme Court, in it’s per curiam opinion, focused on inequalities that already had occurred. The opinion points to
differences in the Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counting”.19 The issue isn’t on what occurred in the past, but is
involved with whether the counting should continue. There is an important difference between past votes counted
and future votes. The change was that a judge would oversee the counting under the Florida Supreme Court’s
decision, and the judge’s intention was to eliminate inequalities and create a uniform standard. The Supreme Court
“improperly treated an ‘as applied’ equal protection challenge as if it were a facial challenge” 20. Bush never
suggested a facial attack. Furthermore, Bush v. Gore was not ripe for this very reason: Bush may have ended up
ahead when the counting was completed, and the courts wouldn’t have needed to decide his appeal. It was unknown
whether any injury would be suffered. The only scenario to allow for this case to have ripeness would be if the
voting was completed declaring that Gore won and Bush could show inequalities within the ballots.
18
“above”
19
“above”
20
“above”
7
The last reason why the case was not justiciable is that it didn’t fit the requirement of the political question
doctrine. Professor Alexander Bickel gives a very persuasive defense of the doctrine in the following:
Such is the foundation, in both intellect and instinct, of the political-question doctrine: the Court’s sense of
lack of capacity, compounded in unequal parts of (a) the strangeness of the issue and its intractability to
principled resolution; (b) the sheer momentousness of it, which tends to unbalance judicial judgment; (c)
the anxiety, not so much that the judicial judgment will be ignored , as that perhaps it should but will not
be; (d) finally (“in a mature democracy”) the inner vulnerability, the self-doubt of an institution which is
electorally irresponsible and has no earth to draw strength from” 21
The issue was indeed strange. The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, has never decided an election, let
alone a Presidential election. The case also had a great deal of influence within the country and was lenient towards
bias judgment from the court. In fact, over 49 million people voted for Gore, so they would view the decision as a
partisan vote by a Republican majority. In Baker v Car, it was decided that Congress had authority and
responsibility to oversee the determination of electoral votes and a “textual commitment”. Last but not least, there
was an absence of judicially manageable standards. There was circular reasoning for the Court because the ultimate
issue was whether there were inequalities among counties in the voting process that denied equal protection. The
optical scanner used rejected on average four out of every 1000 ballots, and the punch card system rejected on
average 15 out of 1000 ballots. In a much smaller election, the Supreme Court held that O’Brien vs. Brown involved
a political question. The case involved a dispute as to which group of delegates would be seated at the 1972
Democratic National Convention. The Court argued that not only did it involve political matters, it also had no
precedence. Furthermore in O’Brien, the Court spoke of “the large public interest in allowing the political processes
to function free from judicial supervision”.22 These three arguments are all directly to the case of Bush v Gore.
Lastly, it must be emphasized that Florida enforces and decides Florida Law. The Florida Supreme Court
has the last say as to whether its own statutes are constitutional or not. Furthermore, it has the authority to decide
the designated date of deadline for the end of counting. “In Murdock v. City of Memphis, in 1875, the Supreme
Court held that it could review only questions of federal law and that the decisions of the state’s highest court are
21
Chemerinsky, E. (2001). Bush v. Gore Was Not Justiciable. Duke Law Faculty Scholarship., 1(1), 1093-1112. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
the EBSCOhost database.
22
“above”
8
final on questions of state law”. 23 In addition, the Judiciary Act of 1789 had no indication of the Supreme Court
overseeing state court decisions involving state law. The case should have been remanded to the Florida Supreme
Court based on the premise of federalism within America. Whether this is an issue of justiciability or not, it does
give another reason for why it shouldn’t have been presented in federal court. Nonetheless, it presented justiciability
issues because it made the Supreme Court’s ruling premature in regard to the counting of ballots. In addition,
politically, it should have been left for the states to decide.
When the US Supreme Court decided to take the case of Bush v. Gore, it inevitably created future
controversies and dilemmas within the American framework of government. It is one of the major decisions in the
history of the Supreme Court. Never before had a decision determined the President of the United States. “The
irony, of course, is that the five Justices in the majority are those who most profess a need for judicial restraint, most
seek to protect states’ rights, and most have championed restrictive justiciability doctrines”. 24 The four justices that
disagreed had some notable quotes in the dissenting opinion that are extremely relevant. Justice Stevens stated,
“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election,
the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the
rule of law”.25 This quote directly touches on the issue of the unfortunate reality of bias in the court. It shows that
partisanship has taken a role where it isn’t supposed to. Justice Souter stated, “To recount these manually would be
a tall order, but before this court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get
that job done”26. Souter emphasizes that the issues of state’s rights and federalism have been weakened with the
American framework of government. Justice Ginsburg touches on the issue of the Political Question Doctrine in the
following quote: “In sum, the court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy
the court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency
of the United States”.27 The last justice, Justice Breyer, brings attention towards the concept of judicial restraint
23
Chemerinsky, E. (2001). Bush v. Gore Was Not Justiciable. Duke Law Faculty Scholarship., 1(1), 1093-1112. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
the EBSCOhost database.
24
“above”
25
Court, S. (2000, December 13). CONTESTING THE VOTE; Text of Supreme Court Ruling on Bush v. Gore Florida Recount Case.. New
York Times, p. 27. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
26
“above”
27
Court, S. (2000, December 13). CONTESTING THE VOTE; Text of Supreme Court Ruling on Bush v. Gore Florida Recount Case.. New York
Times, p. 27. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
9
within the courts on certain issues: “What it does today, the court should have left undone. I would repair the
damage done as best we now can, by permitting the Florida recount to continue under uniform standards”. 28
Many people cite the decision of Bush v. Gore is the Supreme Court coming out of the political closet
(reference to gays and lesbians). The majority of the Court blames the activist behavior of the Florida Supreme
Court to hide its political motives and objectives. Justice Ginsburg and Souter disagreed with the majority and
believed that the state court should be respected. They believed that there was no cause to believe that the judges
were doing their job, and reiterated the belief that state law is state’s business. The court should have had the idea of
fostering “cooperative judicial federalism” in mind.29 Justice Steven reinforces their belief that state law should be
respected and the court should have exercised judicial restraint: “If we assume-as I do-that the members of that court
and the judges who would have carried out its mandate are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable
federal question”30. Breyer and Stevens were concerned that public acceptance would be diminished for a long time
and this is seen when Breyer states: “in this highly politicized matter, the appearance of a split decision runs the risk
of undermining the public’s confidence in the court itself”… “judicial legitimacy hinges on public support and ‘that
confidence is a public treasure”. Stanley Fish also commented on the politics of the Supreme Court by arguing that
they hide their politics behind legal principles: “The only principle operating here is that each party thinks its
candidate deserves to win…practicing politics as usual is what everyone always does and should do”.31 Thus, it
seems that the court’s decision in this case has brought the Supreme Court out into the political realm more than it
used to. Even if the Supreme Court was previously politically motivated, this case can be seen as “the coming out of
the closet and being openly political.” It no longer is following the previous “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
“Even if the court had invoked the political question doctrine only to rule out remedies that prematurely
short-circuited the political process, and had remanded the case to the Florida Supreme Court to conduct a manual
28
“above”
29
Burgess, S. (2005). Did the Supreme Court Come Out in Bush v. Gore? Queer Theory on the Performance of the Politics of Shame..
differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 16(1), 126-146.
30
31
10
recount with uniform standards, it would at least have remained somewhat faithful to our constitutional tradition”. 32
Unfortunately, it didn’t it went against the constitutional traditions of federalism, respect of state’s jurisdiction,
standing, and ripeness. There is evidence that Justices Breyer and Souter presented and raised the political question
in front of the other justices, but for some reason it was ignored. The decision to rescue democracy and conclude the
election was actually an attack on democracy and the framework of our government. It has been widely believed
that the court that decides the least and is the least active is the best. Under that regard, this court isn’t very good.
“Other commentators will doubtless use the decision to reach beyond even the misguided call for blanket judicial
self-restraint and argue that – now more than ever – the wings of judicial review must be decisively clipped”. 33 This
is not the movement the court should embrace, though. The court should return to its foundation and resort back to
the behavior in Marbury v. Madison. “With exquisitely self-conscious sensitivity, the Marbury Court chose the
perfect legal vehicle to establish enduring principles without undermining any aspect of the democratic political
process… the Bush Court felt compelled to intervene in the dispute of the moment, stumbling upon a vehicle that
undermined the political process without an enduring principle in sight.”34 The Court should return to the Marbury
environment because it has the ability to do so. Presently, it is uncharted waters, and is vulnerable to destroying our
Republican form of government. The separation of powers is in jeopardy as a result.
In conclusion, the case of Bush v. Gore was neither justifiable nor handled correctly by the US Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court went away from its fundamental roots, and travelled into dangerous waters. There is an
opportunity for the court to return to being not as political. Unfortunately, it may be impossible for the court to ever
gain it’s non-partisan status. The case of Bush v. Gore is a clear example why the justiciable doctrine should be
strictly followed.
32
Tribe, L. (2002). THE UNBEARABLE WRONGNESS OF BUSH V. GORE.. Constitutional Commentary, 19(3), 571-607. Retrieved
February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
33
Tribe, L. (2001). ...AND ITS DISGUISES: FREEING BUSH V. GORE FROM ITS HALL OF MIRRORS.. Harvard Law Review, 115(1), 172.
Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
34
Tribe, L. (2001). ...AND ITS DISGUISES: FREEING BUSH V. GORE FROM ITS HALL OF MIRRORS.. Harvard Law Review, 115(1), 172.
Retrieved February 20, 2011, from the EBSCOhost database.
11

Constitutional Law Paper I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law Paper I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aristotle Wurtz

place the results of this election in doubt.” 5

two important questions:

unconstitutional, what is the remedy?” 9

court has to believe that the statute is likely to be enforced.

goes against its intention and nature.

and properly limited role-of the courts in a democratic society”. 18

electorally irresponsible and has no earth to draw strength from” 21

politically, it should have been left for the states to decide.

Republican form of government. The separation of powers is in jeopardy as a result.

You might also like