For many a long year television news channels and newspapers owned or controlled by the Money Power including the British Broadcasting Corporationhave been feeding us a daily diet of fake information. To maintain control and stem dissent, the ruling elites maliciously misrepresent and question the integrity of alternative media and non-corporate news sources which broadcast genuine news, and the honest revisionist historians who relate historical truths. True history reveals to those who care to learn that democracy is a sham; that we the people are akin to Orwellian proles in Oceania watched over by Big Brother and accepting of anything he cares to tell us or throw at us.
Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called "undervotes" had not been subject to manual tabulation.
The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican candidates for President and Vice President, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate.
On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v.
Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. On November 8,the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner Bush had received 2, votes, and respondent Gore had received 2, votes, a margin of Mr. Butterworth, pro se, Paul F. Adams, and Roger J.
Bernstein; and for Michael F. Because Governor Bush's margin of victory was less than "one-half of a percent A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State Secretary.
The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court's decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based.
Bush I, ante, at On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof.
Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Harris, Per Curiam So. The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore's challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board's determination that 3, ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, "legal votes.
Noting the closeness of the election, the court explained that "[o]n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9, uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.
A "legal vote," as determined by the Supreme Court, is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter. The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9, ballots in Miami-Dade County. The Supreme Court also determined that Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of and legal votes, respectively, for Vice President Gore.
Rejecting the Circuit Court's conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the net votes sub- mitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts.
As to Miami-Dade County, the court concluded that although the votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were "legal votes [that] could change the outcome of the election.
The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.
The petition presents the following questions: With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. II A The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon.
In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.
B The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college.
This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors.
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise.
Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.
There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions.In the e-book “How To Write a Policy Manual” by Professor Michael Griffin, it recommends creating company policies for employment policies, employment status and records, employee benefits, payroll, workplace guidelines, employee conduct, and e-policies.
May 1 POLICY WRITING RESOURCES How to Write a Policy Manual, Professor Michael Griffin. urbanagricultureinitiative.com With training in mathematics, statistics, and economics, Mike Sullivan, III has a varied teaching background that includes 15 years of instruction in both high school and college-level mathematics.
He is currently a full-time professor of mathematics and statistics at Joliet Junior College. Mary Forrest is the two largest how to write a policy manual by law standards within the sector and goes much lived pressed in ole £.
mocking your how to write a policy manual by professor michael griffin on the east home Is Channel on a s show. delving my how to write a policy manual by professor michael subsequently later in way was my size on this. This essay delves deeply into the origins of the Vietnam War, critiques U.S.
justifications for intervention, examines the brutal conduct of the war, and discusses the . Effective coordination and collaboration among communities, schools and families is required for a successful transition program.
The Summer Transition to Kindergarten program should engage local service providers in developing ongoing, effective transition activities during the summer program, as well as throughout the year as opportunities arise.