You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #21: Thanks for the questions, here are the answers [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Thanks for the questions, here are the answers
1. First, in order for Congress to decide anything, the duty or ability to do so must "devolve" upon them. Article II clearly states the Representatives and Senators may NOT be electors. Therefore, they may not vote for who is President or Vice President except in the cases specifically provided for in the Constitution, such as death of the president or no candidate receiving a majority. Congress has by statute attempted to expand their power, unconstitutionally, giving them broader "authority" via statute. But the Founders were adamantly against the legislative branch choosing the executive, except in the narrow cases where the right devolves. I don't see any clear authority to second guess the election based on "qualifications" and indeed such qualifications in the constitution have historically been ignored completely by the Congress, with 6 reps and senators serving even though clearly too young under the constitution (another form of "birth certificate" issue)

2. It's basically an urban legend that the people don't have a constitional right to vote for president. They do once legislatures decide the manner of electing electors is a popular vote, at which point even Bush v. Gore recites that the constitutional right to vote ATTACHES. Every state since the Civil war, essentially, has chosen the popular method of voting for electors, so as a practical matter this distinction suggesting there's no constitutional right to vote is technical at best. In any event, the right to vote predates the constitution, created and ratified the constitution itself, and comes from state constitutions and inalienable rights to alter or abolish the forms of government that long predate the Constitution itself. Many state constitutions recite that the right to alter or abolish is inalienable -- not even a constitution can change such a thing. It's like the right of self-defense. Even a constitutional amendment purporting to take away the right of self-defense from some or all people would not be valid.

3. The right to vote has been classed as a fundamental and constitutional (and above) right for over a century. Elections are provided for in the Constitution, and more than one amendment provides for no DISCRIMINATION in the right to vote. THe right to vote is CLEARLY thought to exist without need of an affirmative constitutional text or amendment, consistent with the above. It's omission is not a stupid omission.

4. Weaponizing the Constitution. The constitution applies to limit the powers of government and shape its forms, not to limit the power of the sovereign people. Constructions of natural born turn the constitution around and attempt to use it as a weapon against the people's choice. That's not what the constitution works on (the private sector)-- the constitution doesn't even protect us against corporations -- it is simply inapplicable to anything except government action or laws passed by government.

5. Any challenge to qualifications had to be brought before the election. Any other result disfranchises a supermajority of all americans, means that they allowed a "fake election" to go forward. Whoever, in effect, did that, whether Congress or what have you, should not be rewarded with the right to pick the president themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Winning the Direct Attack on Democracy & Obama (Sup Ct Bush v Gore Pt. II decision due Friday 12-5) Land Shark  Dec-04-08 02:59 AM   #0 
  - K&R for democracy! nt  2 Much Tribulation   Dec-04-08 03:16 AM   #1 
  - Stop fear-mongering. Every filing submitted to the Supreme Court is considered.  zlt234   Dec-04-08 03:27 AM   #2 
  - This is not "fear mongering" this says "go on offense" and it also says...  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 03:33 AM   #3 
  - Someone uninformed about legal issues might look at your article and reasonably worry  zlt234   Dec-04-08 03:18 PM   #30 
     - Your missing the parts about what happens when Obama runs the table perfectly  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:16 PM   #35 
        - You've convinced me - you're not a lawyer.  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:52 AM   #101 
  - If someone fires a bullet at your head, you know it missed by a mile, so talking about it is "fear"?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 03:40 AM   #4 
     - it seems obvious that they are not seen that way...  tomp   Dec-04-08 06:30 AM   #5 
        - anticipated that. There you go again, telling yourself "not to worry"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:45 AM   #6 
        - actually this fits with my theory that obama is in office (soon)...  tomp   Dec-04-08 09:52 AM   #15 
        - Did you consider the risk that an uprising is precisely what they want?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:42 AM   #13 
        - It "got to the supreme court" by being laughed out of every other court along the way  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:46 PM   #63 
  - Legal establishment taking these cases seriously, not laughing it off. see  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:00 AM   #7 
  - The right wing  H2O Man   Dec-04-08 09:04 AM   #9 
  - Article argues lawsuits would lack standing under Article III, not the political question doctrine.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:23 PM   #79 
     - True, that's just one example of a wider body of scholarship referencing PQ  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:42 PM   #81 
        - Here's the deal - the Supreme Court DID hear Bush v. Gore.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:52 PM   #83 
           - it gets worse, it may NEVER be able to be overturned, because they  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:57 PM   #85 
           - Okay, but, the point is, the political question doctrine is not the slam dunk  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 10:01 PM   #88 
              - It's an option, PQ doctrine is. An unappealable option for SCOTUS.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:05 PM   #89 
           - a shitstain on the law  Nuisance Man   Dec-04-08 11:22 PM   #94 
           - Minor Note  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:59 AM   #102 
              - consideration is always limited to 'cases and controversies"  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:27 PM   #113 
                 - You have finally convinced me - you are not a lawyer  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:44 PM   #119 
  - Chicago Tribune coverage of political ad and Supreme Court Friday docket here  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:58 AM   #8 
  - Dude, get a sense of humor. Tinfoilhat nuttery often will bring cases to the SCOTUS  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 09:10 AM   #10 
  - Read the University of Michigan Law review link for analysis well beyond "9th grade civics"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:30 AM   #11 
     - Saw no links in your post  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 09:59 AM   #16 
        - The U of MI link is in the replies. You're making the case here for a new election, in the Congress  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:04 AM   #18 
        - Damn, you can't read, can you?  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 10:06 AM   #19 
           - Um, reading is searching for information  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:16 PM   #23 
           - Then you reject the constitution  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:13 PM   #34 
              - be specific, cite your power and your provision.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:35 PM   #41 
                 - Sure thing  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:08 PM   #50 
                    - Easy to take those apart  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:07 PM   #65 
           - Ah, but here's my possibly premature question, before reading the rest of the thread....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:02 PM   #26 
              - Here is the answers  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:12 PM   #32 
              - please cite the "final authority" on the PRESIDENCY language, not other offices. nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:43 PM   #44 
                 - Amendment 12, Section 3, specifically sentence 2. n/t  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:18 PM   #53 
                    - and where does it say "congress decides" and not states, state legislatures or the people's votes?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:22 PM   #68 
                       - Congress decided the elections of 1800 and 1824  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:56 PM   #120 
              - You can't think of any principled distinction between slavery or segregation & electing youngsters  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:41 PM   #43 
                 - Where one makes a "principled distinction" depends upon one's principles  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 06:53 PM   #49 
                    - The Constitution binds and restrains the government, not the people, or even corporations  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:20 PM   #67 
                       - You should write labels for Dr. Bronner, you know  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 08:48 PM   #70 
                          - The move you perhaps are missing is that some laws are void if they  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:03 PM   #73 
                             - "never WARNED THEM"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 09:59 PM   #87 
                                - You can fail to qualify in the states. And that happens sometimes.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:14 PM   #90 
                                   - I'll take the final question....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:14 AM   #95 
                                      - Boy, it is INCREDIBLY easier to stop candidate from office, than to kick out President w/ power  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:38 PM   #114 
                                         - Uh, no, it's just as easy either way  jberryhill   Dec-07-08 12:02 AM   #121 
        - The 20th Amendment does not give congress the power to determine eligibility.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:28 PM   #80 
  - ". . .Bong hits for Jesus. . .!!!"  stellanoir   Dec-04-08 09:33 AM   #12 
  - The irony is that some of the same wingnuts or their followers are  treestar   Dec-04-08 09:42 AM   #14 
  - They want citizenship to be statutory and not a birthright, making it a political football  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:00 AM   #17 
     - Yes, it seems to be one of the extraordinary compendium of tricks they use, or  KCabotDullesMarxIII   Dec-04-08 04:13 PM   #33 
     - Next thing you know...  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:19 AM   #97 
  - A couple of questions... And unlike some, I actually read beyond the first paragraph.  jobycom   Dec-04-08 10:20 AM   #20 
  - Thanks for the questions, here are the answers  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:38 AM   #21 
  - You are forgetting the statutory high bar to disqualify a President Elect  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 10:48 AM   #22 
  - Statutes can not invade the constitutional structure, they can EXPAND not contract peoples' rights  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:18 PM   #24 
     - yeah... tell that to the Bush v. Gore majority  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:07 PM   #28 
        - Yeah so do you worship the Bush v. Gore majority, or the higher principles they ignored?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:34 PM   #39 
           - The answer to that question should be apparent in context here...  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:41 PM   #42 
              - Ok, I don't ever equate court "majorities" and popular majorities, but I can understand why you did.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:09 PM   #66 
                 - WTF is that supposed to mean? /nt  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 08:51 PM   #72 
                    - You spoke of majorities on courts, i spoke of majorities of voters nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:09 PM   #76 
                       - No...  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:22 AM   #98 
                          - You are right on that point. But that's precisely why I'm pointing similar dynamic  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 12:57 PM   #111 
  - Point 4 sounds like advocacy of "mob rule"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:05 PM   #27 
  - Actually, it sounds like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and drafters of the 12th Am.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:12 PM   #48 
  - You take away individual rights by giving too much power to a simple majority.  jobycom   Dec-05-08 01:45 AM   #106 
  - It's a mistake to look just to the constitution to define one's rights, or the american people's  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 01:37 PM   #25 
     - I never did.  jobycom   Dec-05-08 01:56 AM   #107 
  - To simplify  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 02:10 PM   #29 
  - IF the candidate openly proclaimed their real age during the election  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 04:03 PM   #31 
  - The concept here is "issue preclusion" not "the truth of the matter"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:20 PM   #36 
     - Your last sentence....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:34 PM   #38 
     - Again, I disagree. The qualifications are very clear.  IWantAnyDem   Dec-04-08 07:16 PM   #51 
        - It would have been interesting....  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:28 PM   #58 
        - And then the Congress should be all removed for colossal fraud on the people: Fake Election  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:49 PM   #71 
           - No, it wouldn't -be- an issue before the election  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:28 AM   #99 
  - Do the research, it's happened already, 6 times or more with federal office  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:29 PM   #37 
     - The joy of asking folks who have done the research  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 04:35 PM   #40 
        - Did you read the OP? First name there is Henry Clay.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 04:57 PM   #45 
           - Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper?  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:19 PM   #54 
           - Mind telling me where you're coming from? You're making fun of the American people  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 08:42 PM   #69 
              - Again with the personal insinuations....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 12:39 AM   #100 
                 - I asked you to clarify how you feel about the outcomes you seem to be urging  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:16 PM   #112 
           - Good for him - Have you ever heard of D.B. Cooper?  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:20 PM   #55 
  - Ummm.....yeah. Two words:  BullGooseLoony   Dec-04-08 05:03 PM   #46 
  - Ummmm.... yeah, you don't want to be understood by anyone else?  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 06:05 PM   #47 
     - I understood his point clearly  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:44 PM   #62 
  - Clarence Thomas needs to be IMPEACHED - he's a DISGRACE to the Judicial System.  blm   Dec-04-08 07:16 PM   #52 
  - He's not enough of a judicial figure to qualify as a "disgrace"  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:22 PM   #56 
     - heheheh.....I will happily stand corrected....  blm   Dec-04-08 07:26 PM   #57 
        - always good to find major points of agreement. :) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:11 PM   #77 
  - k/r  Fridays Child   Dec-04-08 07:31 PM   #59 
  - Brilliant post  malaise   Dec-04-08 07:38 PM   #60 
  - Thanks, and thanks for keeping me "brief"! :)  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:05 PM   #74 
  - I'm thinking the justices have relatives who will be looking for loans.  aquart   Dec-04-08 07:39 PM   #61 
  - You underestimate the seductiveness of love affairs with The Law /nt  jberryhill   Dec-04-08 07:53 PM   #64 
  - AS your sig says "Democracy is slow and annoying; every voice counts"  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:08 PM   # 
  - All of this presumes that Barack Obama was elected. Who can prove it?  Peace Patriot   Dec-04-08 09:08 PM   #75 
  - While you make some points, I think McCain stipulates he lost (or would do so) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:53 PM   #84 
     - Well, so much for consistency  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 01:15 AM   #103 
  - Obama was born on American soil.  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:18 PM   #78 
  - I'm fine if you want to believe that. The RW has such a huge VOLUME of crap to throw  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 09:51 PM   #82 
     - Uh, how about insisting on Hawaii because Obama was born there?  Renegade08   Dec-04-08 09:59 PM   #86 
        - I've no personal knowledge of where I myself was born. Much less Obama.  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:27 PM   #92 
           - Oh please.....  jberryhill   Dec-05-08 01:31 AM   #104 
              - Well I think their case is more powerfully misleading by far than what you say  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:46 PM   #115 
                 - By "their case", I'm assuming you mean Donofrio's  jberryhill   Dec-06-08 10:30 PM   #118 
  - Well said. k&r n/t  Laelth   Dec-04-08 10:19 PM   #91 
  - Thanks for the nice mix with the thread's constructive criticism! ;) nt  Land Shark   Dec-04-08 10:56 PM   #93 
     - Not a problem.  Laelth   Dec-05-08 07:56 AM   #108 
  - Kicking and recommended to read tomorrow.  Stand and Fight   Dec-05-08 12:15 AM   #96 
  - Thanks, if I may presume a tad of credit, I'll share with JBerryHill on thoroughness of discussion  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 01:49 PM   #116 
  - too much to digest at the moment  amborin   Dec-05-08 01:43 AM   #105 
  - You're right, the case is complete horseshit  HughMoran   Dec-05-08 07:59 AM   #109 
  - In my experience, people have to go through an evolution of thought on this topic  Land Shark   Dec-05-08 12:52 PM   #110 
  - kick for interesting discussion. nt  2 Much Tribulation   Dec-05-08 04:00 PM   #117 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC