posted on November 22, 2000 07:40:26 PM
Clevergirl:
I am 50 yrs old. Reading your post I don't object to 50% of it. I have that EXACT fear with democrats being in power.
Look at all the funny stuff Clinton pulled!Look how many have died suddenly...those FBI files in the white house etc...
The character assasination that the Clinton/Gore's have mastered so well against anyone who doesn't agree with them.
That really scares me!
You feel the best way to save our future is with the Dems...I say it is with the Republicans.
I don't feel any certain 'chill' about what Bush said...I AGREE with it..enough is enough. We won't be pushed around anymore.
"NICE has just left the room" in other words..alls fair in love and war.
My hubby spent 10 yrs in the military..I always thought our vote counted...Fla with the help of a 5 page memo from the dems has decided that the military are only good to die for the country..little else.
I have seen CLINTON weaken our military with closing so many bases..and yet time after time he is sending our 'men' to fight. That scares me.
I am a native Californian...2 generations..
I was in Calif during the Beatle invasion and the hippies...and Manson etc...
You and I are BOTH scared to death..we have different ways of saying it...and our views about WHO is increasing these fears are opposite ours.
posted on November 22, 2000 08:30:51 PM
[i]Clevergirl:
I am 50 yrs old. Reading your post I don't object to 50% of it. I have that EXACT fear with democrats being in power.
Look at all the funny stuff Clinton pulled!Look how many have died suddenly...those FBI files in the white house etc... [/i]
I'll tell you something you won't understand, let alone accept. I urge you to mull it over though.
You're actually a victim here. No, not on this thread. You're a victim of the Clinton hatemongers. Of Newt Gingrich, for one, and the radical religious right. (I'm guessing Jerry Falwell is a prominent figure in your life.)
They dreamed up a boogeyman (or lots of them, all named Democrat and the head boogeyman was named Clinton), and now YOU'RE scared. But it was all a mirage. Now others find you scarey because you're so hysterical and scared yourself. You've been frightened unnecessarily, whether you believe that or not.
I don't find it objectionable that you disagree with (or even keenly dislike) Democratic principles or platforms. I -- and others here as well -- find it objectionable that you find DEMOCRATS not just people who stupidly believe things you don't, but people who threaten your existence and way of life, for reasons that are simply irrational. It's a lie, all of it. You've been frightened unnecessarily -- and you've bought it hook, line and sinker. It's a scam. Turn on the light and look around. There aren't any boogeymen.
You feel the best way to save our future is with the Dems...
No, there's an excellent example of your twisted and irrational thinking on the subject, not to mention your inability (unwillingness??) to actually read and comprehend what someone else has said. It's true that I have some serious doubts about George Bush as presidential material, but I don't for a minute think that our republic would be served by having one party and one party alone dominate everything. I think having at least 2 parties (and preferrably better acess to the process by others) provides a nice, built-in set of checks and balances within the structure of our government which itself provides its own set of checks and balances.
There are and have been (and will be) many fine, decent, highly principled Republicans. Can you say the same about Democrats? If not, you've been blinded by the hate you've swallowed. Literally.
But some Republicans are dangerous -- NOT because of what they believe, but because of what they DO. Because they are over the top with their own hatred (of Democrats, of Clinton, of *tree huggers,* of *libruls,* of feminists, of lawyers esp. trial lawyers, on and on) and over the top with their own fear -- not to mention the fear they spread.
It's NOT that they disagree with or even dislike Democrats. It's NOT that they fight Democratic policies or legislation or even candidates with every fiber of their being. It's that they spread HATE and FEAR as a primary method of doing so. And their belief that *the enemy* (first clue -- in American politics we have OPPONENTS, not enemies) -- that the enemy is SO bad and SO vile that whatever means to overthrowing or thwarting them justify the means.
::shudder::
All of this is more than corrosive, it's unbelievably destructive. And it's destructive for all concerned, including them. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" (and let me hasten to say I'm speaking figuratively here!!!), even if it does take a while sometimes for *time to wound all heals,* as I like to put it.
I say it [the best way to save our future] is with the Republicans.
Well, then you'd be wrong, for the reasons cited in my first paragraph above.
You know, as long as you can see no good in any Democrat anywhere, and are fearful of having them as friends and neighbors, you are going to live a sad and sorry, fear-ridden, hysterical, tragically circumscribed life. Whatever remains of it.
BUT, since it obviously suits you well, you're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned, for as long as it serves you.
Please remember to discuss the topic, not your fellow poster(s). I know many of you are passionate about this election and its ramifications, and we encourage spirited debate. But it is possible to express your views without criticizing those who disagree.
"There is also the question of whether or not the Florida Court should have heard this argument to begin with. Apparently, they took it upon themselves to review this action without being asked by either side."
I'd have to ask two questions... 1. Where did you hear that and 2. Why would you believe that?
I heard a snippet of Rush Limbaugh saying that on CNN. It was completely stupid. I never watched Rush Limbaugh before, I figured he was just one of those guys that likes to hear his own voice. When I heard him say, on CNN, that the Florida Supreme Court had decided to hear this case on its own, I concluded that Rush Limbaugh is a moron.
This case originated in Circuit court in Florida. The court there made 2 rulings, both of which went against the Democrats.
The losing side then filed an appeal, the appellate court in this case being the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida, having received a request for review, agreed to hear the case. That's how our judicial system works.
Very very rarely, the U.S. Supreme Court will ask to hear a case that has not been presented to it for appeal. (That is not happening now though, Bush has filed a writ of certiori, a request to the U.S. Supreme court to review the holding of the Fl. Supreme Court). I don't know if a state Supreme Court ever does the same, i.e. ask to hear a case that it has not been requested to by the losing party. In any case, whoever first said that the Florida Supreme Court heard this case without being requested to by either party is a moron. And whoever believes and repeats this is a fool.
I'll say again that every person has a duty,
a responsibility, to know what the truth is for themself. To swallow any ridiculousness that's trotted out, and then become indignant about it, without bothering oneself one bit to stop and wonder - "Is this true?" and finding out for oneself if it is or not practices a form of intellectual laziness that is not only shameful, but could become dangerous (as this seems to be heading.)
CleverGirl, I agree with you re Newt Gingrich et al. (and your mention of Tom DeLay makes me remember, it was him, not Dick Armey, I think, who requested the Congressional research office to prepare a report about Congress' power re naming a president.)
Was it foolish of us to not see something like this might come? I guess it was. Newt Gingrich lost his seat and, in this little speck of Georgia, anyway, we breathed a sigh of relief. Stupid of us. But who would think any rational person would go as far as the Bush controllers seem to be willing to go? Of course, it hasn't happened yet, but enough of it is happening to scare me. Talk that's verging on advocating an overthrow of the judiciary... the scenes of an angry mob pushing to get in the door of the Miami-Dade canvassing board's meeting... how much bigger and how much farther would that all go?
I agree with you, I'd rather that Gore not get elected, because I'm afraid of the fallout.
Although I have no love for the Democratic Party, and I've said several times that I don't believe their rhetoric either, I do believe, from reading the applicable laws and the court cases, that they were on the correct side of the legal questions surrounding this election controversy, from the beginning. Not because I believe the Democratic Party's ideological position has more merit than the Republican party's, but simply because the position that the Republican Party took was, under the law, simply incorrect.
"I just get a bit annoyed when people point their fingers at the Republicans for doing what they feel is necessary, while saying the Democrats are well within their rights to whatever legal remedies are necessary."
Njazd never did answer, or perhaps doesn't realize, what's troubling about the statement above. To feel that one has leave to do what one feels is necessary, without regard for the law, is a position that puts us all in peril. For a few isolated people to feel that way is one thing. For a political party to advocate that position, and to have a large body of supporters who will espouse it without question, is frightening, and I do wonder how long our country can survive if that goes much further.
posted on November 22, 2000 09:54:21 PMWas it foolish of us to not see something like this might come? I guess it was. Newt Gingrich lost his seat and, in this little speck of Georgia, anyway, we breathed a sigh of relief. Stupid of us. But who would think any rational person would go as far as the Bush controllers seem to be willing to go?
Oh, Donny, who would have thought Newt Gingrich would have been willing to shut down the government -- as a bargaining chip!!!! -- in pursuit of his goals?
How can you have expected less of those he trained?
As for James Baker and the elder Bush -- they weren't the Gingrich crowd, but they always have had a fairly "take no prisoners" attitude. Have you seen anything less attractive in a long while than the little temper tantrums Baker has delivered on Bush's behalf?
Anyway, your assessment of Limbaugh is precisely right. He doesn't let facts get in the way of furthering the cause. I would strongly encourage you to listen to much, much more of him. You will, however, have to have something of a strong stomach. I used to listen to him routinely, but whenever I was ill or going through a low-energy time (physically or emotionally), I couldn't handle it. You really should apprise yourself of the kind of rhetoric and (worse), the thinking or lack thereof going on out there. It will curl your hair. And, it truly is another piece of the puzzle (along with Gingrich) of how we got to this unusual and precipitous point in our history. He influences millions of people every day. For that reason alone you surely will want to study him a bit, no matter how difficult the task.
edited: a little clarity here and there (or so I hope)
posted on November 22, 2000 10:10:27 PMand others here as well -- find it objectionable that you find DEMOCRATS not just people who stupidly believe things you don't, but people who threaten your existence and way of life, for reasons that are simply irrational. It's a lie, all of it. You've been frightened unnecessarily -- and you've bought it hook, line and sinker. It's a scam. Turn on the light and look around. There aren't any boogeymen.
That says it all. And it reminds me of another time and place, where someone else had the same fear and massacred so many people with different views and religion, in the name of righteousness that was really fear.
posted on November 22, 2000 10:25:53 PM
donny...I haven't answered you because it is the night before a major holiday and as usual, a woman's work is never done.
I heard the Court remark mentioned on a San Diego talk radio show on the way home tonight and have been trying to research it, but RL got in the way of computer time tonight. I will look into in during some downtime tomorrow.
I just have a problem with anyone circumventing the established rule of law. It is the legislative body that enacts laws and the judicial body that interprets and rules using the laws in place. It is not a judge's job to change the law. If there is a law that they don't like, they can appeal to the legislative body to change the law, but while it is in place, the judge is supposed to follow it. We don't need activist judges who consider themselves above the law.
Take the dimpled ballots...a judge ruled that Palm Beach County must now consider ballots with dimpled chads, even though the procedure for the last 10 years has been not to. And this in a county where Gore was way ahead to begin with. It wasn't a close race in Palm Beach County. However, these same dimpled ballots were discarded throughout the entire rest of the state. Once it was obvious that Gore couldn't come up with enough votes in the regular hand count, they had to get the dimpled ballots. You are changing the rules after all the other counties have finished and have been certified, i.e., circumventing the law. If the dimpled ballots are so important, then the entire state should be ordered to do a full recount and follow the same rules.
And now with Miami-Dade, a judge ruled they had a right to stop the hand count since they couldn't finish in time. So, now it goes to the Florida Supreme Court, even though they have already ruled for a Sunday deadline. Will the Florida Court extend it's deadline yet again?
Personally, I would like Gore to win at this point. I don't think he will ever get out from under the pall this will put on his presidency and I believe with the slight majority held in the House and Senate, he will not be able to do too much damage.
All I want to know is who gets to hold the keys to my lockbox?
******************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 23, 2000 12:18:06 AM
Sigh Where to begin?
First off, the only research you'd need to do yourself would be to use www.findlaw.com to see that the case the Florida Supreme Court heard was on appeal from a lower court ruling. It would be highly unusual (if not impossible?) for a state Supreme Court to hear a case that was not presented to it on appeal by the losing party. I'm suprised everyone doesn't know that, this is how courts work.
Now:
"Take the dimpled ballots...a judge ruled that Palm Beach County must now consider ballots with dimpled chads"
This is true, but I believe you have given it the wrong construction. They must now consider ballots with dimpled chads. That means "consider," not count as a vote. They can't immediately discard them, but they don't immediately count them either. They consider them, and either disregard them or count them, on a one by one basis.
In fact, today's court ruling is no different than what the same judge gave to the same Palm Beach Count Board in the last case he heard about this very issue. Nothing has changed since then.
"Even though the procedure for the last 10 years has been not to"
Yes, it's true that during a previous recount, the elections supervisor, in Palm Beach County, had written, in 1990 in regards to another contest, that dimpled chads were never to be even looked at to determine if they were votes. But that's clearly at odds with the law. Every court, in Florida and otherwise, before this, has said you can't immediately discard what might be a vote. You have to consider, give proper thought to, any indication that a ballot caster had tried to vote. The 1990 rules were illegal in 1990, and illegal now. The judge, by his previous decision, made that clear, and made it clear again in his most recent decision. He did not say that dimpled chads *have* to count as a vote, merely that they have to be thought about first, before being discarded as not being a vote.
The court changing the law - I don't know if I can make this understandable, but I'll try.
First off, Jim Baker said, after the Florida Supreme Court decision, that the court had not merely interpreted the law, it had written new law. After he said it, other Republican politicians said it, in the exact same words on tv, and then George W. Bush said the exact same words on tv. Now other people are saying it, in the exact same words. But it's just not true. I'll try to explain it.
The legislature of the state does write the law. But they don't write it all at once. Remember, the members of the legislature, at least some of them, change every few years.
Once upon whenever, the Florida state code was first written, with X numbers of statutes. As times changed, and new legislators got elected and old ones left, the new legislators either rewrote some old statutes entirely, or added new provisions to old statutes. The statutes of any state, though you read it as one body of law, is actually sort of the result of an ongoing work in progress, one document that's actually a sometimes contradictory piecemeal, patchwork fabric, because new stuff gets added to old stuff, etc. etc.
It is not at all unusual, when a situation arises and you look to the Code of a state to find out what the law is, to find 2 or more provisions that, on first reading, conflict. We would hope that the legislators, when adding new provisions, have carefully considered existing provisions, and don't put in new ones that are at odds with old ones, but it happens a lot, everywhere. It's sorting it all out that keeps judges and lawyers working.
When a court, like the Florida Supreme court was, is presented with having to look at sections of code that, on first reading, seem to contradict each other, it's the court's job to somehow make the pieces of code fit with each other.
A court will begin with the presumption that the legislature was acting rationally when it wrote the codes that conflict with each other. (This is a sort of judicial fairy tale. Truthfully, we can see that the legislature wasn't rational when it wrote conflicting code, but probably lazy and inattentive. Still, in order to give as much weight as possible to the legislative branch, the court pretends that the legislature must have been rational.)
When you begin by assuming the legislature was rational, the next step has to be to say - In order for these pieces of code to fit together we must be misreading them. They *can't* mean what they appear to mean at first glance, because if they did, they wouldn't fit together. And they have to fit, because the legislature was rational when they put it into law.
So your next step is to say - By reading these statutes as they seem to be written, we must actually be *misreading* them, because they cannot be read as as they seem to be written and still fit together.
Jim Baker, and the Republican line, has only focused on one particular section of the Florida code, the one that says that results must be certified in 7 days. But there are other sections of Florida code that directly conflict with the 7 day certification limit.
Jim Baker, I believe, is a lawyer himself, and had to have known better. And yet he kept on saying, and keeps on saying "The law says 7 days!!" Well,he's right, as far as he goes. But he grossly misstates the law by not mentioning that there are other statutes that *have* to be considered in addition to the 7 day certification limit.
Now comes the court, charged with the task of interpreting several statutes that, on their face, clearly conflict with each other. And they have to jam these statutes together, 'cause there's no other way they will fit. At the end, it looks like a tortured solution and, if you look at the solution they came up with, it sure didn't look like that one part, the 7 day certification rule, that Baker kept harping on,because the Court has to give weight to *all* the law that the legistlature wrote, not just the one sentence that Jim Baker tries to keep everyone focused on.
So the court, faced with conflicting statues, one that says fish, and one that says fowl, has to fashion a solution. And what it comes up with look a bit like fish, a bit like fowl, and a bit like neither.
Remember, while the Florida state legislature might howl today that what the Florida Supreme Court's solution was wasn't what was intended by the legislature, that *this* legislature sitting there now *aren't* the same legislators who wrote the laws.
The Court, in trying to find a solution to this conflicting code problem, fashioned what is called an "equitable remedy." Equitable remedies are entirely within a court's power, they have their basis in English Equity court. Our law, of course, is based on English Common law. Equitable remedies have to be available to a court, because sometimes there's just no solution that's already written that will solve the problem at hand.
It's not improper for a court to fashion an "equitable remedy." The judicial system couldn't function without them. But when they make one, they don't make them out of thin air. They look, as this court did, to the state statutes first, and make a solution that tries to fit as much of the existing state code in as it possibly can, if not in actual language of the code, (the conflicting language of the code being the problem, after all) but what the code must be intended to do, taking all the pieces into account.
I would urge you, and anyone, to read the Florida Supreme Court's decision for yourself. Do this first, before you take to heart what a politician, any politician, *tells* you about it. Read it for yourself, and then think about it for yourself.
George W. Bush said it because Baker said it. Republican politicians said it because George W. Bush said it, now the Republican populace says it because Republican politicians said it.
posted on November 23, 2000 05:50:44 AMdonny: So clearly said I can understand thru my slight case of brain fog. Thank you for the www.findlaw.com.
krs: As a republican, the party's choice of candidate and subsequent hijinks has me seriously considering dropping my party affiliation. A party that chooses such a nincompoop isn't my party.
posted on November 23, 2000 06:39:41 AM
Good morning and Happy Thanksgiving, all.
I wanted to just add a little to Donny's thoughts by recapping what FL statutes say about elections. (I haven't read them myself, directly -- probably should -- but I've seen them quoted extensively.)
First, one part of the statute says the Secretary of State *shall* receive and certifiy vote counts by 5 p.m. Tuesday after the election and in another part that she *MAY* accept and certify by then. So there's the first set of conflicts in the law.
Secondly, the law clearly provides for recounts, which are to be requested within 72 hours. The recount is done on 1% of the votes in a county and THEN if there's reason to believe a manual recount would change the outcome of the election, that can proceed if the County Canvassing Board approves.
This is the basis of the 2nd set of conflicts -- that the 7 days required and/or suggested (depending on which part of the statute you're looking at) doesn't allow enough time for the manual recounts to be accomplished in more heavily populated counties.
If a candidate waits (for whavetever reason) until 71 hours after the end of the election to request a recount, that would be late Friday after the Tuesday election. In a heavily populated county, even doing the 1% manual recount could take a few days, even working over the weekend. If you don't start a FULL manual recount til Sunday or Monday, there's no way to finish by Tuesday, 7 days after the election, as the law currently requires (or at least requires in one part of statute, but doesn't seem to require in another). So the law is inherently self-contradictory on this. It provides for something (a manual recount) that it doesn't allow time for (at least in one part of the statute).
In cases such as the one we have before us, such inconsistencies and contradictions MUST be sorted out by someone. If the legislature didn't do it properly to start with, that *someone* is the courts. As Donny points out, THIS IS THEIR JOB!!!!!
So the Republicans are not just *spinning* but LYING when they say the Court has written new law with their decision. Conservatives can whine about the more stringent (tho contradictory) parts of the statute not being upheld, but FL law and indeed most (if not all) states' laws HEAVILY favor voter rights to have their vote counted as a key PRINCIPLE of law and future legal decisions. In fact they bend over backwards to favor voters on this issue.
Yes, Baker is a lawyer. Yes, they had to have known (eventually if not at the beginning) that they chose a losing strategy in trying to fight the legitmacy of handcounts and trying to stick with the more stringent (but inconsistent and undoable) parts of FL law, but that's what they did. They have no one to blame for themsleves. (Just WHO IS IT who's trying to steal the election?)
But they figured they could get away with it, as they have so many times in the past. Say something often enough -- and have it picked up by all your sleazy, intellectually dishonest cohorts, and picked up repeatedly (those seductive *soundbites*) by a complicit and asleep-at-the-wheel media, and you get a good proportion of the population believing you -- ESPECIALLY when that's what they'd prefer to believe anyway.
Aaarrrgggh. Now I'm all mad thinking about it. Guess I'll go beat a turkey into submission.
posted on November 23, 2000 09:42:54 AM
Confusing rhetoric hides the truth.
The Florida Supreme Court legislated, new law. They (Court) did not (just) interpret the existing statute or rule the statute or any aspects of the statute unconstitutional, as courts are held to, the Florida Supreme Court revised the statute. Now the Court is in a position of having to enforce a law they (Court) enacted and that (is) unconstitutional.
Such action flies in the face of separation of powers. The courts are not to have power equal to the executive and legislative branches.
It will now be interesting to see what the Florida Supreme Court does now that a lower state court and members of an election board have thumbed their noses at the recent Florida Supreme Court legislation.
posted on November 23, 2000 09:59:24 AM
The gospel according to to GWBush: "The legislature's job is to write the law, the executive branch's job is to interpret it."
And I guess the judiciary has no job?
Makes one wonder why he's petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.
posted on November 23, 2000 11:11:20 AM
Republicans certainly don't have a monopoly on media frenzied fanatics.
I read the Florida Supreme Court ruling and have a question. They have ruled that the manual counts must be included if they are returned by this extended deadline. However, I don't see anywhere that they have amended the requirement for the returns to be a manual recount of ALL votes in the county (which certainly would have been a re-write of law).
So, I don't see how Gore can selectively count certain precincts and have only those new-found votes added to his count (if indeed that is his intent).
Can someone clarify?
[ edited by hopefulli on Nov 23, 2000 11:13 AM ]
posted on November 23, 2000 11:29:31 AM
Decision 20000 should be renamed Hypocrisy fest 2000.
It all boils down to one thing. Both sides want to win and will manipulate things in any way possible to make things go their way. I can't believe that anyone could take either side seriously.
posted on November 23, 2000 12:04:29 PMSo, I don't see how Gore can selectively count certain precincts and have only those new-found votes added to his count (if indeed that is his intent).
hopefulli, either candidate had the opportunity to request a manual recount under Florida law within a specified time frame. Gore availed himself of this right; Bush did not. I believe (but might be wrong) that the time frame is 72 hours after the 1st recount that was mandated by Florida law due to the close ending tallys. Do not blame Gore because he chose certain counties to ask for a recount, and Bush did not. Bush had every opportunity to request one himself. Why didn't he?
The courts are not to have power equal to the executive and legislative branches.
SgtMike, please take a refresher course in Civics 101. The 3 branches, executive, legislative, and judicial are ALL separate but EQUAL under our Constitution. In addition, you will find it beneficial to visit the link donny provided earlier to read exactly what Florida election law actually says. For clarification, read CleverGirl's posts in this thread. The Florida Supreme Court did not revise any statute, they simply interpreted it as it was written by legislature. You may not like that interpretation, but there it is. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to post here exactly where word for word the Florida Supreme Court revises the law.
As for separation of powers, listen very carefully to the venomous and threatening rhetoric coming from certain members of the Republican Party. Listen to the words of these people who, not only have threatened to defy the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, but have also threatened to take similar action should the US Supreme Court rule against them in their latest petition. This would be a direct attack upon our Constitution and our country's very foundation. For the Republican Party to seize political control through legislative action that would defy the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law, is nothing less than treasonous. We're not quite there yet, but it appears that this is the course that George W. Bush is considering, if you believe all of his "spokepeople", and THAT is what will lead this country to a so-called "constitutional crisis. I ask you does this end justify the means? Scorched Earth, indeed!
posted on November 23, 2000 12:20:03 PM
hopefulli asked:
"So, I don't see how Gore can selectively count certain precincts and have only those new-found votes added to his count (if indeed that is his intent).
Can someone clarify?"
I can try. The manual recounts that have been going on are county-wide recounts, not only in certain precincts. They are counted precinct by precinct, yes, but once one precinct has been counted, then they begin on the next precinct, untill all precincts are counted, which would comprise the whole county.
posted on November 23, 2000 12:51:48 PMThe Florida Supreme Court legislated, new law. They (Court) did not (just) interpret the existing statute or rule the statute or any aspects of the statute unconstitutional, as courts are held to, the Florida Supreme Court revised the statute.
I invite you to try to justify that statement with some facts.
In the meantime, you may recall that there's a common term most people have heard -- "case law." It's not a derogatory term in any way. It refers to the body of *law* which has derived from court decisions.
Case law IS part of the law, entirely and totally legitimate (unless overturned by a higher court) because it absolutely most certainly IS the courts' job to interpret existing law.
Now the Court is in a position of having to enforce a law they (Court) enacted and that (is) unconstitutional.
Enforcing is part of the judiciary's job too. You break a law, you get arrested, you go to court. For non-criminal cases, such as many we've seen in the last 2 weeks, they have ruled one way or another on a broad variety of things, FORCING or PREVENTING people from doing things.
KatyD has a good suggestion: Civics 101.
I know all of this has certainly piqued MY interest not just in civics but history as well.
posted on November 23, 2000 01:01:53 PM
I do believe there are people here who need to read and comprehend beyond "Civics" to understand what they are trying to say.
I suggest they start with the Federalist papers and a bit of Constititional rulings regarding what is "equal power" regarding the 3 branches, and what is "case law" v.s. "new law".
posted on November 23, 2000 01:35:48 PM
Gee, I'm not sure that civics 101 would cover such elements as "The Federalist Papers", so even had any of the whiny republicans attended that course to it's end they would have been likely to miss that discussion of judiciary powers and the impossibility of judiciary encroachment of the powers of the legislature by Alexander Hamilton which reads, in relevant part:
"It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature,would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations".
posted on November 23, 2000 01:47:19 PM
Actually, the judiciary can't really enforce the law, and therein lies the problem. As has been tossed around quite often, lately, our nation is "a nation of laws, not men." When we keep that in mind, and respect it, and remember that the court is the final arbiter of the law, things work as they're supposed to.
When one branch of the government disregards the power of the judiciary, and goes against the law, the judiciary has no power to enforce the law. The most famous example of that was probably the U.S. Supreme Court case of Worcester vs. The State of Georgia in 1832. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, after that decision, "John Marshall (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the opion) has rendered his decision, now let him enforce it." Basically it came down to - The Supreme Court had the law, the President had the guns, the President won.
The U.S. Supreme Court's inability to enforce the law led to the Cherokees' forced removal from Georgia, the infamous "Trail of Tears." The action had been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court. It happened anyway. No way for the judiciary to enforce the law when the executive branch opposed it.
posted on November 23, 2000 03:27:00 PM
Good point, Donny, and an interesting story.
But are you saying that the Executive Branch is the standard *enforcer* of the law? Or that the Executive Branch is the enforcer BECAUSE it has the guns (force)?
Force is, of course, the ultimate enforcer of anything (including lawlessness).
posted on November 23, 2000 04:32:41 PM
But for the impeachment mechanism, yes, and that, brought about by the legislature, could have reversed the action against the Cherokee nation, but noone cared enough.
And who is it, class, who presides in an impeachment process?
BTW, you all needn't, as if you would, heed the advice to consult the Federalist Papers. They have no force in law whatever, and were merely a series of tutorials designed to persuade the very reluctant states to adopt the new constitution.
Newspaper articles, essentially.
posted on November 24, 2000 06:18:35 AM
In case anyone missed it:
Today, ABCNEWS learned that a strenuous, seemingly spontaneous public demonstration against the recount Wednesday in Miami-Dade — which contributed to one canvassing board member’s vote in the 3-0 decision to quit recounting — was actually organized by the Republican Party, which bused supporters in from out of town.
posted on November 24, 2000 09:17:47 AMIMLDS2, I have read your posts over the last few days, honestly not understanding where you are coming from, for your posts contain such expressions of hate and apparent hopes for violent confrontation, with the (it would seem) desired end of either eliminating or perhaps subjugating those in opposition to your beliefs.
But finally, with your statement, "I was in Calif during the Beatle invasion and the hippies...and Manson etc...," I understand.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:35:13 AM
I apologize for the length of this, but I sincerely hope that everybody will take the time to read it and think a little on what it says.
What Made America Famous
Harry Chapin
It was the town that made America famous.
The churches full and the kids all gone to hell.
Six traffic lights and seven cops and all the streets kept clean.
The supermarket and the drug store and the bars all doing well.
They were the folks that made America famous.
The local fire department stocked with shorthaired volunteers.
And on Saturday night while America boozes
The fire department showed dirty movies,
The lawyer and the grocer seeing their dreams
Come to life on the movie screens
While the plumber hopes that he won't be seen
As he tries to hide his fears and he wipes away his tears.
But something's burning somewhere. Does anybody care?
We were the kids that made America famous.
The kind of kids that long since drove our parents to dispair.
We were lazy long hairs dropping our, lost confused, and copping out.
Convinced our futures were in doubt and trying not to care.
We lived in the house that made America famous.
It was a rundown slum, the shame of all the decent folks in town.
We hippies and some welfare cases,
Croweded families of coal black faces,
Cramped inside some cracked old boards,
The best that we all could afford
But still to nice for the rich landlord
To tear it down and we could hear the sound
Of something burning somewhere. Is anybody there?
We all lived the life that made America famous.
Our cops would make a point to shadow us around our town.
And we love children put a swastika on the bright red firehouse door.
America, the beautiful, it makes a body proud.
And then came the night that made America famous.
Was it carelessness or someone's sick idea of a joke.
In the tinder box trap that we hippies lived in someone struck a spark.
At first I thought I was dreaming,
Then I saw the first flames gleaming
And heard the sound of children screaming
Coming through the smoke. That's when the horror broke.
Something's burning somewhere. Does anybody care?
It was the fire that made America famous.
The sirens wailed and the firemen stumbled sleepy from their homes.
And the plumber yelled: "Come on let's go!"
But they saw what was burning and said: "Take it slow,
Let'em sweat a little, they'll never know
And besides, we just cleaned the chrome." Said the plumber: "I'm going alone."
He rolled on up in the fire truck
And raised the ladder to the ledge
Where me and my girl and a couple of kids
Were clinging like bats to the edge.
We staggered to salvation,
Collapsed on the street.
And I never thought that a fat man's face
Would ever look so sweet.
It was the scene that made America famous.
If not the love that made America great.
You see we spent the rest of that night in the home of a man I'd never known before.
It's funny when you get that close it's kind of hard to hate.
I went to sleep with the hope that made America famous.
I had the kind of a dream that maybe they're still trying to teach in school.
Of the America that made America famous...and
Of the people who just might understand
That how together yes we can
Create a country better than
The one we have made of this land,
We have a choice to make each man
who dares to dream, reaching out his hand
A prophet or just a crazy God damn
Dreamer of a fool - yes a crazy fool
There's something burning somewhere.
Does anybody care?
Is anybody there?
It's funny when you get that close it's kind of hard to hate.
Where to begin?