Renegade08
(201 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-04-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
| 80. The 20th Amendment does not give congress the power to determine eligibility. |
|
Nowhere in the 20th Amendment does it say that.
|
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread