Who cares what the people want? Not bush!

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
W. must have been drunk, drugged, or awol during civics class.
I was taught by my HS civics teacher that the previous times that the popular vote and electoral college vote had been different had been during a time of extreme corruption, that it could never happen again, that the people would not stand for it. That the electoral college was a fiction, an irrelevancy, it didn't really exist, and that it would be immediatly abolished if this even threatened to happen.

NPR said the day after his speech that 12-18% thought his 'plan' had a possibility of succeeding. I was extremely offended how he put it as if the decision to dig a deeper grave was his alone to make autocratically.(If we are stuck with a hereditary autocracy, I would rather have a Romanov, they had more style)

For Madame Zora's running mate, do you suppose DMW could be resurrected? (a virtual Veep would be way kool, and wouldn't need to hide from terrorists)
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,505
Media
104
Likes
23,736
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
No DC, I did not make any specific statement as to George Bush's appointment to office by the Supreme Court. The statement which I did make is #9 in this thread, which you are welcome to read. You might want to read it in its entirety...it is not lengthy.

However, since you asked, although the Supreme Court did rule in Bush v Gore, it did not "appoint" the president, so I guess that is the denial you are seeking from me.

In fact, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court for further action consistent with its findings regarding constitutional law.

(By the way, if you REALLY want to get pissed at me, read my recent postings in the anti-Americanism thread)

The Court's decision can be read at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

A summary history of the case and events can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

And kalipygian, your civics teacher certainly must have missed his or her own civics lessons. The electoral college was and remains a part of our system. There are many valid reasons why it has not been changed, but, should it be the will of enough people, it is possible to modify it through amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Of course, it will take more than a few disgruntled voters to accomplish that. Part of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was to check the impluses of a few, I suppose, and to ensure that to be enshrined into the Constitution ideas needed to have truly broad based support. So, if you believe strongly enough, get to work in gathering like minded individuals to your cause.

Interestingly, neither party has made it a priority and no serious effort has been attempted. Perhaps the idea of changing it lacks sufficient popular support. (I know, that is SO unfair and SUCH a nuisance.)
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Bubba, I was making a specific reference to the fact that

1) By its own very strict and inflexible rules, the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to "rule" in Bush v Gore. The USSC is strictly an appellate court, and not a primary one at that. It requires all other cases to be heard in the lower courts, through the circuit and district courts of appeals.

and

2) It violated Constitutional process. There is no Constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to settle a state-level dispute in a federal election.

and

3) The Supreme Court's purpose is not to decide the facts of the case; its purpose is to ensure that the decisions of the lower courts are Constitutional and follow due process.

Sounds like an appointment to me.
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,505
Media
104
Likes
23,736
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Although it does not apply to Bush v. Gore, it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction in some matters.

Article III, Section 2 "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction".

I believe that the basis of juridiction in Bush v. Gore was the equal protection clause of the Constitution and the Federal Voting Rights Act, either of which is an appropriate basis for bringing a request for an appeal to be heard before the Court.
 

Sergeant_Torpedo

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Posts
1,348
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Apologists for wrong doers in high office have always hidden behind the law. One does not have to be an attorney, educated, articulate, or even a bleeding heart to know basic truths. The poorest and most wretched among us knows right from wrong.
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,505
Media
104
Likes
23,736
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I certainly hope you are not referring to me as an apologist for George Bush, Sarge. You need to read my postings in this thread and others before you cubby-hole me, please.

Perhaps I misunderstood your posting, in which case please accept my apology.
 

In Awe

Just Browsing
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
17
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Oklahoma
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
*avoiding the garden snips*

Fuck! Why didn't we think of this sooner:

MADAME ZORA
FOR PRESIDENT
IN 2008!

We could launch an LPSG campaign with her as our candidate!

Her campaign slogan: "She'll whip this country into shape, ya fucktards!"

Who can we nominate as a running mate for Vice President? Please submit nominations in this thread.

*as her male bitch, he drops his pants and begins "campaign managing" MZ*
Well, philettophish would be interesting as a running mate
He'd certainly keep her on her toes.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, well, at least the bush administration finally backed down on the NSA surveillance thing... but the problem with that is the solution. It goes back to the FISA secret court to issue warrants for wiretaps. Except we don't know HOW those warrants are issued, whether they are issued for individuals or groups, and what criteria are used. The proceedings of the secret court are (big surprise) secret, as are the "rules" that they follow.

From my viewpoint, not much difference in the FISA court and the NSA, just the name.
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,505
Media
104
Likes
23,736
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, well, at least the bush administration finally backed down on the NSA surveillance thing... but the problem with that is the solution. It goes back to the FISA secret court to issue warrants for wiretaps. Except we don't know HOW those warrants are issued, whether they are issued for individuals or groups, and what criteria are used. The proceedings of the secret court are (big surprise) secret, as are the "rules" that they follow.

From my viewpoint, not much difference in the FISA court and the NSA, just the name.


Not really in too much disagreement, BUT it is an improvement in that at least now some degree of check and balance has been restored.

And of course they backed down because the administration would have needed reauthorization from Congress, something that would not have been obtainable.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
W. must have been drunk, drugged, or awol during civics class.
I was taught by my HS civics teacher that the previous times that the popular vote and electoral college vote had been different had been during a time of extreme corruption, that it could never happen again, that the people would not stand for it. That the electoral college was a fiction, an irrelevancy, it didn't really exist, and that it would be immediatly abolished if this even threatened to happen.

Tilden/Hayes. Decided in the House. Hayes won, though losing the popular vote. He turned out to be one of the least corruptible men we've ever had in public office. Exciting, but not as exciting as the 1800 election, in which the electoral vote was tied, and we came damn near to having Aaron Burr as the third President.

The electoral college is indeed a fiction, every bit as much as the idea of universal suffrage. Recall that the Founders envisioned the country run by educated white property owners of English and Scots extraction. A nation of yahoos was not what they'd had in mind, although you could argue - as indeed many did, both at the time and after, though I think it's an exaggeration - that that's what it became during Jackson's term. They also never considered a system in which the "will of the people" (even educated white property owners of English or Scots extraction) was of any importance at all, except on election days.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Further, that a candidate who lost the popular vote and won in the electoral vote would be forced by public opinion to concede.

I think it might have made some sense in the 18thc, There was no mechanism or precedent for a national popular vote, it was done just at the county level.

Since a constitutional amendment to abolish this undemocratic anachronism would require approval by popular vote in 35 states, it is not likely to happen in the forseeable. States like Alaska that have a small population are over represented relative to states with a larger population, people vote their own selfish interest rather than what is fair.

I consider W. to have been pretending to the office.

MPB: thank you for your suggestions as to how I should spend my time and effort.
Perhaps you might like to join with the group Alaskans for Peace and Justice (of which I am a participant) in their weekly (ongoing for several years now) silent protest of W's war fridays at noon at the Anchorage Federal Building.
 

meatpackingbubba

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Posts
4,505
Media
104
Likes
23,736
Points
618
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
[kalipygian "Perhaps you might like to join with the group Alaskans for Peace and Justice (of which I am a participant) in their weekly (ongoing for several years now) silent protest of W's war fridays at noon at the Anchorage Federal Building."]

Although I spend much of the winter traveling, I am in Anchorage at present and I'll try to be there tomorrow. Thanks for the invitation. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to meet.

[kalipygian "Since a constitutional amendment to abolish this undemocratic anachronism would require approval by popular vote in 35 states, it is not likely to happen in the forseeable."]

Regarding the process for amending the U.S. Constitution, you may want to read the information available at the following link.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Unless I am mistaken (which is always possible) or have forgotten (another distinct possibilty) there is no provision in the Constitution providing for a direct popular vote of the people to enact amendments.

Part of the genius of our republic is that there are substantial hurdles in the way of constitutional changes. This is intended, in part, to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected from whims of the majority that may be popular at any given time. Things like a constitutional ban on gay unions, for instance. It is inefficent by design.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
MPB: thank you for your suggestions as to how I should spend my time and effort.
Perhaps you might like to join with the group Alaskans for Peace and Justice (of which I am a participant) in their weekly (ongoing for several years now) silent protest of W's war fridays at noon at the Anchorage Federal Building.

Although I spend much of the winter traveling, I am in Anchorage at present and I'll try to be there tomorrow. Thanks for the invitation.

Regarding the process for amending the U.S. Constitution, you may want to read the information available at the following link.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html




Unless I am mistaken (which is always possible) or have forgotten (another distinct possibilty) there is no provision in the Constitution providing for a direct popular vote of the people to enact amendments.

Part of the genius of our republic is that there are substantial hurdles in the way of constitutional changes. This is intended, in part, to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected from whims of the majority that may be popular at any given time. Things like a constitutional ban on gay unions, for instance. It is inefficent by design.


Excellent. their website is:Alaskans for Peace & Justice.

Yes, if I remember, a constitutional amendment origonates in congress where it has to pass by 2/3 majority, then it has to be approved in 2/3 of the states by popular vote, a simple majority.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Nope, Kali, it is the legislatures of the states that must approve the proposed amendments.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

That does sound right, I hadn't looked it up and misremembered. The only one that has come up in recent times was the ERA, and I was out of touch working on the pipeline at the time.
Believe Alaska was the first or second to pass it, we used to have a legislature we could be proud of.
 

grandunification

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Posts
968
Media
13
Likes
1,917
Points
423
Location
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Interesting, but I thought we supposedly hired a president to represent the will of the people. Not so in this regime. THIS "president" is a monarch, so I guess he really doesn't HAVE to give a flying fuck how we feel.

In all honestly, I see very little difference between him and Saddam Hussein. Regardless of what transpires, I believe they deserve the same end.

Bush's Iraq plan to go ahead despite public opposition. 15/01/2007. ABC News Online


In the United States, the Bush administration says it is untroubled by public opposition to the plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.
Opinion polls show the majority of Americans oppose President George W Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.


When we first went into Iraq there was quite a bit of support. President Bush recently said that his opposition does not provide a plan of their own. So my question for you Zora is what should the U.S. do? It's ok to criticize, but you should have a plan of your own.