Republicans shouldn't win this way

Until recently, it could be said with honesty that the Republicans,
in their post-election actions, have been more consistent in adhering to
the rule of law or, at a minimum, insisting that the campaign of
Vice President Al Gore adhere to the rule of federal and Florida state
law.

It could also be said with a straight face that, while both sides
have tried to skirt laws here and there, the Gore campaign has been the
worst offender -- with, of course, lots of help from various activist
judges, especially in Florida.

But last week GOP lawmakers in Congress proposed a solution that not
only violates the spirit and letter of the Constitution, it violates the
principle of that very same rule of law Republican George W. Bush's
campaign has said it wants to follow implicitly.

I mention Bush not because he necessarily agrees with the proposal I
reference, but because it was obviously introduced in Congress as a
measure intended to help him directly.

TRENDING: Limbaugh: 'I'm on thin ice saying this' about Biden

In case you missed it,

Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas, has co-sponsored a bill that, if passed, would force Florida canvassing boards to count most military absentee ballots officials have tossed out.

The measure seems moot now, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Tuesday night ruling favoring the Texas governor, but it's worth noting because it illustrates the ease in which lawmakers -- as a matter of convenience -- can be induced to ignore the rule of law when it suits their own ends.

The measure I speak of is called the "Armed Services Vote Rescue Act," or H.R. 5642, and it's designed, say its backers, to "strengthen the Federal Uniformed and Overseas Absentees Voting Act by providing that all ballots cast by those in the U.S. military stationed overseas shall count, if there is no evidence of fraud."

"The men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our nation should have their votes counted -- it is a constitutional right," said Combest. "This bill sends a clear signal to election officials that votes cast by military personnel are equal in the eyes of the law and should be counted just as any other vote would."

The Texas congressman and the bill's 40 other co-sponsors are exactly right to assert this particular fact; our military personnel help guarantee that our constitutional rights and liberties -- as well as our very freedom -- are safe, secure and transferable to each subsequent generation.

However, even if Republicans could get the bill passed in the House and Senate and then signed by President Clinton -- and much of this is doubtful -- it has no business becoming the law of the land.

According to

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, such a bill violates the legislative prohibition against passing ex post facto laws.

What are ex post facto laws? They are laws that are "done, made or formulated after the fact," according to the

Merriam-Webster
online dictionary and thesaurus.

In a press release, Combest declared that "legal experts at the Congressional Research Service and the House Legislative Counsel have concluded that this retroactive application is clearly constitutional."

How can that be? If indeed "congressional and constitutional researchers" did conclude such a bill was legal, then these people should be fired immediately; I don't know how much more plain the Constitution can be on this point.

In his statement Combest even used the word "retroactive" -- the very phrase used by dictionaries to describe the kind of law Article 1, Section 9 specifically prohibits.

Republicans cannot have it both ways, and I'm hoping this legislative sleight-of-hand is not an indication of things to come from a Republican congressional majority and a now-likely Republican administration.

The GOP should remember their angst when the Clinton administration, in its first term, passed -- as part of its overall tax increase -- a retroactive tax provision in 1993. Ex post facto then; ex post facto now.

Make no mistake -- I agree with Rep. Combest's premise that all military votes that are otherwise cast properly and legally should count; I covered this issue first and foremost for WND and most of the free world, from

start to

finish. Believe me, if anyone (other than the actual service members) thinks our military voters got hosed in this election, it's me.

But -- as the saying goes -- "two wrongs don't make a right," and Republicans cannot be serious about winning this way. Remember, Al Gore and the Democrats were the "no-controlling-legal-authority" dogs in this race; not Bush or, for the most part, other Republicans.

I was also disappointed to see so many Republicans -- 41 very intelligent and capable lawmakers -- sign onto this in spite of the obvious unconstitutionality.

Worse, the violation came from a section of the Constitution specifically reserved to the legislative branch -- a section all congressmen should know front-to-back, side-to-side.

I hope Republicans and the Bush campaign realize this is no way to win political races. Maybe now is the time for the House to instead revive a measure that was popular a few years ago -- a bill requiring Congress to cite specifically the constitutional provision, amendment or article that gives them the power to pass it.