Mundane Astrology & Politics: Why is Florida Such a Troublemaker in Elections?

(Astrology Explored)

Remember this?

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount that was occurring in Florida.

In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

In 2008 Hilary Clinton lost crucial delegates when Florida decided to hold its primary early in contravention of Democratic party rules. An unhappy Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of all of its votes, rendering Clinton’s overwhelming victory over Barack Obama meaningless.

Now in 2012 Florida does the same for the Republican primaries:

“When Florida voters choose their candidate for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, they’ll do so as the fourth state in the process. The cost: half their delegates to the GOP convention.

. . . officials figure it’s worth a penalty for their state to maintain a relevant voice in nominating candidates for the White House.

“I’d much rather have a say in the nomination process as opposed to the coronation process,” Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos said.”

So why does Florida flout the rules of both the Democratic and Republican parties? Why does those in charge of running the state choose maverick methods to influence national elections?

The answer it seems, at least astrologically, are the problems with the documents that mark the dates of the transfer of ownership of Florida land from country to country.

The History

Florida’s history is morass of overlapping claims and occupations.

For thousands of years before Europeans came to this peninsula, a succession of native peoples lived here with very different ideas about owning land. They had names like Calusas, Tequestas, Temucuans, and Apalachees. One estimate suggests that there were “as many as 350,000” living here before the Spanish arrived in the 16th century.

Spain and France established settlements in Florida with varying degrees of success. A combination of weather, famine and troubles with the indigenous population made establishment of permanent colonies problematic for both the Spanish and the French.

Britain occupied Florida from 1763 to 1783. Great Britain gained control of Florida and other territory diplomatically in 1763 through the Peace of Paris. Spain received both East and West Florida after Britain’s defeat by the American colonies and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles in 1783, continuing the division into East and West Florida. They offered land grants to anyone who settled in the colonies, and many Americans moved to them.

After settler attacks on Indian towns, Seminole Indians based in East Florida began raiding Georgia settlements, purportedly at the behest of the Spanish. The United States Army led increasingly frequent incursions into Spanish territory, including the 1817–1818 campaign against the Seminole Indians by Andrew Jackson that became known as the First Seminole War. Following the war, the United States effectively controlled East Florida. In 1819, by terms of the Adams-Onís Treaty, Spain ceded Florida to the United States in exchange for the American renunciation of any claims on Texas.

The Adams-Onís Treaty was signed in Washington on February 22, 1819, and ratified by Spain October 24, 1820, and entered into force February 22, 1821. It terminated April 14, 1903, by a treaty of July 3, 1902. The treaty was named for John Quincy Adams of the United States and Louis de Onís of Spain.

But because of the length of time it took to get the treaty ratified it had to undergo a second ratification process.

Additionally, the Adams-Onis treaty had problems in its construction.

Certain treaties, upon ratification, have some or all of the obligations they contain become immediately incorporated into US law. These treaty obligations are termed self-executing treaty obligations.3 If self- execution status is not intended (an instance of “non-self-execution” status), the obligations will pass into US law only if the government passes “implementing” legislation.4 The final determination as to whether US treaty obligations are self-executing or non-self-executing is ultimately the responsibility of the US judiciary.5

The distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaty obligations first arose in a legal interpretation of the US Constitution by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1829 case of Foster v. Neilson.6 In this case, the Supreme Court found a provision of a treaty between the US and Spain to be non-self-executing.7 Following that judgment, divergent judicial trends developed within the American judiciary, leading to a period of prolonged confusion.8 However, the Supreme Court recently clarified this important aspect of US treaty law in the 2008 case of Medellín v. Texas.

Spain gave United States the land, but it was up to the United States to make Florida a state. This did not happen until 25 years later. In the meantime:

. . some previous Spanish land grants were declared valid. Special land commissions and judicial tribunals were established to determine the validity of each Spanish land grant. All other land was owned by the U.S. until ownership was transferred in some manner.

Who owned what was quite a question for some time. At one point “the state sold some 2,753,380 acres more than it had.” Until about 1870 “land in the Florida Keys was difficult to legally own with complete assurance of ownership.”

Astrologically, whenever there is a problem with the establishment of ownership of land there is usually some defect in the “natal” chart of the transfer of the property.

In the chart of the Adams-Onis Treaty is interesting to see that most of the planets are grouped in either the zodiac sign of Aquarius or Pisces. The Aquarian grouping, representing the American public, since the United States natal chart features an Aquarian moon, are unaspected to other planets except themselves.

Unaspected planets having no other zodiac sign to modify them, act like wild horses in the chart. Anything can happen. As we know from Florida’s history, anything does.

The second grouping of planets which includes the Sun, Saturn, Chiron and Pluto sextiles Venus but is in challenge aspect to Neptune and Uranus who appear to act as co-rulers of the chart. Uranus brings unexpected events and Neptune brings confusion. Could a Sun be more debilitated, being in a weak sign, hampered by Saturn, weakened by Chiron and twisted by Pluto and challenged by the co-rulers of the chart?

When Florida was officially declared a state, the planets were aligned in what can only be described as synchronicity. Again four planets are in Aquarius, and the Sun is in Pisces. Mars, the planet of trouble, sits in the same sign and in between the chart rulers of the Treaty chart. Chiron, the planet that shows were something is wrong, in now opposite the Statehood Sun where in the Treaty Chart it sits with the Sun. In a very real way, the Statehood chart is a redo of the afflicted Treaty chart.

So it any wonder that the Treaty of July 3, 1902, the Treaty of Friendship and General Relations abrogated, that is nullified, all previous treaties between the United States and Spain? But where does this leave Florida? Even though the Supreme Court in the 2008 case of Medellin v. Texas pronounced that treaty obligations are self executing, curing whatever defect the Adams-Onis Treaty may have had, that treaty is still nullified. So is Florida a state?

At least one jurist, William Pena Wells, believes not and he says so in his twenty page brief.

Under this logic, the U. S. ownership of Florida is nullified. Florida, therefore it is an occupied territory, not a state, and it can not act with the authority of a state. It is understandable then why there is so much confusion around electoral votes and primaries. The dated documents that establish Florida as a legal entity are no longer valid, leaving Florida to run without constraints through the political and legal processes of the United States.

Florida flag graphic published under a Creative Commons license from user afmcva as described on Photobucket.