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 #65: Easy to take those apart [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 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #50
65. Easy to take those apart
Article 1, Section 5: has to do with legislative not executive branch. I litigated a congressional election contest directly on point with this clause with the Congress claiming it gets to choose it's own members, thus it swore in a member with 68,500 uncounted votes on the FIRST count in a close race, the Congressman claiming the House had exclusive jurisdiction and "final authority". That phrase you use, "final authority" if given the expansive construction of the bigger power mongers in the house, would mean elections are entirely useless, in that the House and Senate have "final authority" (which they don't for various constitutional and structural reasons which I won't get into because this section is inapplicable.)

Article 2, Section 1. States "senators and representatives" shall not be electors. also states the job of the Congress is to TALLY the electoral votes, which merely is ministerial meaning to add them up as received. Also states that the power of decision in the electoral college devolves to the House only when no candidate gets a majority, and even then, the Senators and Representatives in that special case do not get to individually vote, but they vote by one state/one vote. (50 votes total). STill no "final authority" and self-perpetuating legislative majority "authority" here.

Amendment 12; The use of the word "devolve" implies an absence of causation or active pushing, this is the key word in terms of if and whether any selection duties for the "chief magistrate" accrue to the legislative branch, which is and has been disfavored (there cannot be the necessary separation of powers and independence of the branches if the executive is ordinarily or in any but extraordinary cases actually elected by the legislative branch. SEE STATEMENT OF SENATOR TRACY ON RATIFICATION OF THE 12th AMENDMENT, below.

Amendment 20, Section 3 (specifically, the second sentence). Special legislation or retroactive (self-serving) legislation is impermissible. I presume you are reading something into this language that implies a broad power of selection or review that isn't there? The word "qualify" is mentioned, but no power is given to the Congress to make that determination whatsoever, no is "qualify" defined as anything other than getting a majority of the votes in the electoral college, or as a reference to state-based proceedings. Recall that state legislatures have "plenary power" to fix the method of selection for electors under Article II jurisprudence, a construction that allows the House to pass on issues other than the special cases provided for in article II of non-majority and of amendment 20 (death) would render that plenary power of the state legislatures a complete joke, to be unwould at will by the federal house/senate.

So you've pointed to the sections, I fail to see any point to them. I can address the statute, which cannot modify or enlarge the constitution, in a next post.

The sense of "manly" below had a sense of civic involvement in it that was strong in the late 1700s...
" with manly firmness invasions on the rights of the people." Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, 1776. (*) Papers 1:338

"The Constitution is the origin and measure of legislative authority. It says to legislators, thus far ye shall go and no farther. Not a particle of it should be shaken; not a pebble of it should be removed ..." Justice William Patterson

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry

Governments are more or less republican, as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents. I am a friend to that constitution of government which has in it the most of their ingredient. Thomas Jefferson, 1816

The great check imposed upon Executive power was a popular mode of election; and the true object of jealousy, which ought to attract the attention of the people of every State, is any circumstance tending to diminish or destroy that check. It was also a primary intention of the Constitution to keep Executive power independent of Legislative; and although a provision was made for its election by the House of Representatives in a possible case, that possible case never was intended to be converted into the active rule, so as to destroy in a degree the line of separation and independency between the Executive and Legislative power. <>--Senator Tracy, debate concerning ratification of Amendment XII to the United States Constitution



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