Reply #3: It also challenges the fascist view of the law they rely on to steamroll

[pat_k]

. . the public and stonewall to violate the intent of our laws.

Their fascist view of the law has infected American discourse. Over and over again, we see "THE LAW" invoked to trump our will. People on "our side" have fallen victim to it, with devasting consequences.

If we are going to resist the fascist take over, we need to challenge EVERY appeal to legalistic technicality and "complexity" used to thwart the INTENT of our laws.

Despite Scalia's Orwellian claim that "Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided 'not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court'" he uses HIS serpentine interpretations of the "the plain text of the Constitution as it was originally written and intended" as a cudgel to bash through decisions that violate the principles embodied in those words.

As they promote their lunatic notion of a unitary authoritarian executive, we are told that it is all very complex -- that the likes of us cannot make a judgement; that we are helpless in the face of their legal authority, when in fact, it is INCREDIBLY simple. You do not need an expert to weigh in. You don't need a law degree, or even a high school degree, to know that absolute power like that is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

Few people question their fascist fantasy that we are a nation of laws not men, which they seem to invoke whenever are relying on twisted legalisms to justify actions that Americans know must be wrong on their face. Without unquestioning acceptance that madness, they could not have stolen the 2000 election.

In 2000 and again in 2004, too few questioned those who invoked "legal authority" to deceive us and violate our will. Had more of us rejected the results of their cynical misuse of the courts and legal technicality, they could not have stolen our last two presidential elections.

Within days of the 2000 election, it was well-known that more Floridians went to the polls to vote for Gore than Bush. Simple extrapolation of the mysteriously uncounted ballots conclusively demonstrated that Florida elected Gore by tens of thousands of voters (if not counted votes).

For anyone with any amount of morality or decency, that should have been the end of it. The fascists did not even bother to deny that more people in Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. Instead, they invoked the erroneous premise that the burden was on us to prove their reported results were wrong. They invoked complexity and legal technicality as cudgels to bash through their rationalizations for ignoring valid votes.

An election is not a sporting event or contest of any kind. It is a survey of the will of the electorate. In 2000, the result of that survey had been demonstrated to a level of certitude that would be acceptable in any court that enforced the undeniable intent of our laws.