Turnout 75 percent: Americans must face
the truth about how and why our country is deadlocked and cannot extricate
itself from its current Election 2000 dilemma. America has come full circle
to the same place it was when the founders debated and accepted the Great
Compromise, a death knell to democracy.
The frightening truth about George W. Bush
and Republicans is their plan to turn back the clock on Black people by
openly re-instituting the rule of law enforced before Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka. Bush stated unequivocally, "I will appoint judges
who will strictly interpret or construct the Constitution." The actions
of the Supreme Court show how far such judges will go to impose their racist
philosophy on America.
One cannot change history; one can only
lie about it is a reproof for those who refuse to accept the record following
objective observations and analysis of historical facts. The darkest lie
is not strong enough to resist the light of truth forever. Even though
a lie can overcome truth, it
can never vanquish it. Truth will find
a way to shine through the darkest cloud. Buried in the deepest pit and
covered over by the thickest coat of inveracity, like a flower that grows
up through concrete, truth will find the light of day. So, it will be in
Florida. The votes will be counted and America will finally know that Vice
President Albert Gore won its 25 electoral votes through the process mandated
by the Florida legislature.
This is history; hence, the truth will
be known!
The Vice President should file a rite of
Habeas Corpus to examine the body--the votes--in this case. The court has
yet to look at the corpse (the votes) in order to ascertain exactly what
the only real witnesses in this case have to say. Imagine being on trial
for murder and the prosecutor
produces your gun as the murder weapon.
He also calls witnesses, who swear you shot the victim. Furthermore, the
victim is truly dead, but no one has ever examined the body to determine
the actual cause of death. When the defense raises this issue, the judge
says, "looking at the body will not substantially change the outcome of
the trial." Consequently, under these
circumstances, the court finds you guilty
of murder because the judge believes to examine the body is so gruesomely
horrible that looking at it will cause irreparable harm to the prosecutor's
career. The question is this: would you accept this verdict because you
are told "it is for the good of country?" This is the position the Vice
President of the United States of America finds himself.
George W. Bush and Republican operatives
have cloaked themselves in what they call "the rule of law." All laws in
America are supposed to flow from the Constitution. They point to Article
II Section 1 as their justification for refusing to count Black people's
votes. Moreover, they jump over Article I of the Constitution, which invests
all legislative powers in Congress to determine how representation will
be apportioned among the States. "Representatives and direct taxes shall
be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths
of all other persons."
The seed of America's present dilemma is
this cataclysmic paradox. George W. Bush, Republicans and other strict
constructionists are talking out of both sides of their mouths about the
Constitution and whether or not the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments repealed
the 3/5ths Compromise of Article I Section 2 of the Constitution. The strict
constructionists state's righters on the Supreme Court have impugned their
last bit of integrity and have shown they are flaming hypocrites.
Hypocrites to the last man, strict constructionists
say the aforementioned section was not repealed after the Civil War, therefore
the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are unconstitutional. Simultaneously,
George W. Bush lawyers are before the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of
white votes in Florida for "equal protection" which is based entirely in
the 14th Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." After winning
a decision regarding absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties to
count
ballots, Bush's lawyers used rights gained
by Blacks under the XV Amendment's "equal protection" clause to prevent
counting their votes in violation of the 15th Amendment's guarantee that
the right to vote "will not be abridged."
This is the nature of the great paradox
the Supreme Court has bitten into trying to preserve white privilege. The
crux of the matter is how to enforce Article I-3/5ths Compromise- without
repealing the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. This Constitutional crisis
is not about who will become President but rather, does these three amendments
mean anything for Black people, or is it under Bush and strict constructionists
these rights only apply to white people?
The truth is Black people in Florida were
systematically disenfranchised based on the 3/5ths formula from Article
I Section 2 of the Constitution - " adding to the whole number of free
persons...., three-fifths of all other persons." If the Vice President
concedes to George W. Bush and agrees that he and the Republicans have
the right to steal an election, the Democrats are accepting being a second
class party in much the same way as the Republicans were before 1994. How
will Blacks be able to trust a party that campaigned on "fighting for the
people," but quits like Ehud Barak as soon as the fighting gets hot? Black
people are asking, "Do Democrats
stand for one-person one-vote self determination
democracy or white domination?"
History will show the choice was before
America and the Democrats caved in from pressure to preserve white privilege!