Election 2000 Essay Research Paper Election 2000Unless
Election 2000 Essay, Research Paper
Unless you have been hole uping in a cave someplace off the seashore of Madagascar for the past six and a half months, you know about and/or have experienced the historical twelvemonth 2000 presidential election. Since twenty-four hours one there has been mass coverage non merely of the campaigners, but besides of their households, friends, and concern associates. One periodical that did an first-class occupation of covering the facts about this election, particularly between November 8th and November 19th, was the New York Times. The columns and op-editorials in this newspaper were powerful sentiment pieces that questioned political place, the Separation of Powers, and the duty of the campaigners.
Only $13.90 / page
These columns and op-editorials eventually gave the state an inside expression on what was traveling on behind the scenes and what was truly go oning during the election.
First I would wish to discourse the duty of the campaigners. What precisely is duty? Does Vice President Al Gore or Governor Bush show this quality of leading? Harmonizing to the New Lexicon Webster s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, duty is the province or quality of being in control or holding to give satisfaction and through the eyes of Mr. Leon Panetta, neither campaigner is genuinely worthy. After reading Mr. Panetta s article, I sensed that there seemed to be an aura of pettiness environing this run. That both campaigners were taking issues and state of affairss to the extreme. Basically, that no 1 was ready to take the function of the defeated. In bend a state full of people are enduring from the self-importances of two work forces who want to be the leader of the state, but aren T giving satisfaction to the state. Therefore are these two work forces populating up to their duties, or are they merely being selfish and looking out for themselves?
Leon Panetta, former White House head of staff under President Clinton ( 1994-1997 ) , writes in his November 14th op-editorial that, ASo far both ( Al Gore and George W. Bush ) have allowed their run organisations to prosecute in go oning runs to convert the populace of equity of their places. Deploying attorneies, spokesmen and run directors this manner may fulfill the appetency to contend, but non the duty to accommodate a serious national quandary. @ This statement entirely displays that Panetta has a job with the manner the campaigners and their runs were acting. He goes on to state that holding a national election of over 100 million ballots boil down to a few hundred Acontroversial @ ballots in Florida is hideous. He besides feels that Aa scorched-earth judicial proceeding procedure to the acrimonious terminal @ makes sense to the attorneies and the run functionaries it truly makes no sense for the state. It was besides evident to Panetta that the US was divided over who should win, but he felt that a post-election conflict would merely do it hard for the victor to regulate the state.
Since the federal tribunal decided non to interfere with Florida and its Torahs, both Bush and Gore faced a important pick harmonizing to Mr. Panetta. He concluded that they ( Gore and Bush ) could litigate each election determination that was non acceptable, but disputing those close ballots would non halt at Florida, they would hold to dispute Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and any other province that disputed consequences. He besides feels that this is all twaddle and that the two should come together and hold to a class of action that would convey this election to cloture as rightly and dutifully as possible.
The op-editorial besides goes on to talk about how an understanding between the campaigners would non fulfill the runs or the attorneies and perchance some electors, but it would be the right thing for the state because both sides were contending a legal and propaganda war that they were losing. Furthermore the campaigners weren=t the lone people losing, the state was besides at a loss because there was no 1 to regulate and in Panetta=s eyes the presidential term is about seting the nation=s involvement foremost. @ As a true trial of the duty of campaigners and their runs, Panetta concludes with a call of action. He states, ABoth of these campaigners have campaigned on the footing that they would do the tough picks if and when the clip came. That clip is now. @
On the other manus, in the November 18th edition of the New York Times editorial page, the tribunals alternatively of the campaigners are being questioned and how much the public owes them and how much power one individual can hold. Florida=s secretary of province, Kather
ine Harris, was directed from prematurely attesting the presidential election consequences. The state=s highest tribunal scheduled a hearing to see the legality of the manus counts and Ms. Harris=s claim that she has the authorization to disregard all late returns. The column besides goes on to explicate how the public owes a great trade to the province Supreme Court for its applaudable velocity and astuteness in stepping in to keep the position quo until all legal issues were resolved. Besides how it would be stupid to go on the manus counts and exclude the consequences, that manner the American electorate would be certain that the result of the presidential election was based on a full and just count, even though under imperfect conditions.
Ms. Harris=s claim of authorization would non be the last word on this election because the Supreme Court would non wait to Aresolve the legality of the late manus counts until after enfranchisement. @ Since the tribunal allowed the counties to continue with manual recounts, one would hold to accept that impression that these counts were legal. Because they were, it seemed clear that the secretary of province & # 8217 ; s determination to reject those ballots was improper under Florida jurisprudence.
It seems that whoever wrote this column had a little job with Ms. Harris and how she reacted with the tribunals. For some unusual ground it seemed as if she felt that she had supreme power and no affair what the tribunals said she would hold her manner. In this column there is no evident alteration in the sentiment of the author, he/she had a strong strong belief about the election, the tribunals, and Ms. Harris that did non rock in any manner, form, or organize throughout this piece.
To find in front of clip that such returns will be ignores, nevertheless, unless caused by some Act of God, is non the exercising of discretion. It is the stepping down of discretion. This was the gap line to an column in the Times on November 15, 2000. Originally given by Judge Terry Lewis, the statement was understood to intend that Katherine Harris was utilizing her authorization in so arbitrary a manner as to allow the hold of concluding ballot runs merely in the instance of an act of God, such as a hurricane. But, Ms. Harris, who seems to be on a power trip, directed the counties to explicate why the manus counts were necessary and need. This was an effort to steer to govern that manual numeration is undue and in making so cut short the exercising before Vice President Gore picks up extra ballots. Harmonizing to the column, that would overthrow the spirit of Judge Lewis s determination and undermine public religion that the result of the election has been reasonably determined.
The column besides states that Judge Lewis s determination was a theoretical account of common sense and a reproof to the partizan misreading of Florida legislative acts by Ms. Harris, who has blurred her duplicate duties as main supreme authority of the province s election Torahs and her function as a Bush protagonist. Again demoing how power driven the adult females truly is. The article continues on by stating that if both parties will esteem it, the justice s governing points to a way out of a conflict over the cogency of sums in those topographic points where Mr. Gore is stating that the original machine count missed some of his ballots.
Subsequently in the column the writer discussed a two- portion consensus that should hold been reached by both parties involved in the election. The portion that stands out the most is the 2nd portion, which states everyone should halt filing jurisprudence suits to hinder the numeration. Any attempt by Ms. Harris now to halt the manus count before it is completed would be autocratic and strictly partizan. It would get the better of Judge Lewis s responsible attempt to see that triumph in Florida is non declared before all ballots are carefully and reasonably counted. Along with this consensus, there was the thought that there should be a manus count in every county, Republican or Democratic, where local functionaries feel one is warranted, and Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush should fix the state and themselves to accept the consequences.
In decision, as I stated earlier, unless you & # 8217 ; ve been hole uping in a cave someplace off the seashore of Madagascar for the past six and a half months, you know about ( if non experienced ) the historical twelvemonth 2000 presidential election. With all the mass coverage that was traveling on during this clip merely one newspaper seemed to stand out on top with facts was the New York Times, particularly between November 8-19, 2000. The columns and op-editorials were powerful sentiment pieces that questioned the system of political relations, Separation of Powers, and the true duties of campaigners.