Bedward Family - Commentary

Florida Supreme Court Redefines Our System of Government

Craig Bedward

This Section 2 of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. Read what they consider to be their guiding "principles." It is a rationalization of why they will not be following the law in the rest of the decision. I have added bold to phrases they use to describe the law. It is a blatant attempt to discredit the very concept of law, the concept that is the cornerstone of our REPUBLIC (Note we do NOT have a democracy).

Republic = rule of law (lex rex, the law is king)

Democracy = mob rule (democrat translations: "will of the people", "the court of public opinion")

What the court did was not to resolve a case, but rather, resolve what kind of government we have. They have rationalized their actions to not only circumvent and nullify the law, but to set in place the interpretation that the law is not paramount.

If we allow that, we have no republic.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ...

If we are to believe the court, obeying the law would be considered "hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions" or "unyielding adherence to statutory scripture." They are mocking the law.

The rest of the decision is irrelevant when it is prefaced with those "principles." The one and only purpose of a court is to INTERPRET THE LAW. And the first thing they do is declare that the law is is not important, but that "the will of the people is the paramount consideration."

Notice also, in this statement of "principles," they begin to justify their ruling. "... the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard." This is not a general statement of principles. It is a statement of the principles necessary to rule the way they want to in this case, i.e. Guiding Rationalizations.

Complete text of the decision (Sorry, the original link cnews.tribune.com/news/story/0,1162,sunsentinel-nation-83578,00.html is no longer available)

(Actual text from the decision, emphasis added)

II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Twenty-five years ago, this Court commented that the will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases:

The real parties in interest here, not in the legal sense but in realistic terms, are the voters. They are possessed of the ultimate interest and it is they whom we must give primary consideration. The contestants have direct interests certainly, but the office they seek is one of high public service and of utmost importance to the people, thus subordinating their interest to that of the people. Ours is a government of, by and for the people. Our federal and state constitutions guarantee the right of the people to take an active part in the process of that government, which for most of our citizens means participation via the election process. The right to vote is the right to participate; it is also the right to speak, but more importantly the right to be heard. We must tread carefully on that right or we risk the unnecessary and unjustified muting of the public voice. By refusing to recognize an otherwise valid exercise of the right of a citizen to vote for the sake of sacred, unyielding adherence to statutory scripture, we would in effect nullify that right.

Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259, 263 (Fla. 1975) (emphasis added). We consistently have adhered to the principle that the will of the people is the paramount consideration. Our goal today remains the same as it was a quarter of a century ago, i.e., to reach the result that reflects the will of the voters, whatever that might be. This fundamental principle, and our traditional rules of statutory construction, guide our decision today.

There is a system of checks and balances in our system. Too often, we forget that their is a check against judges overreaching their authority: impeachment. In this case, the judges have blatantly disregarded the law and rationalized the position that they are not bound to interpret law in the first place. They are placing themselves above the legislature. The proper legislative response should be to impeach the judges. They cannot be allowed to make law. Period.