Borillar
|
posted on December 27, 2000 01:11:50 AM new
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The people of America have the right to hold free elections in order to elect such officers as described in the US Constitution. No branch of the government shall issue a law, order, command or ruling that may suspend, block, or halt or otherwise hinder the free and full elections or a full accounting or tally of votes by the people of the United States of America.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 27, 2000 09:34:18 AM new
Hello Borillar,
And who would interpret this if not the courts?
And who would enforce this if not the executive branch?
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 27, 2000 09:43:12 AM new
But what do you think of it, codasaurus? It takes states voting on an amendment to put it into the US Constitution, so would you vote for it?
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 27, 2000 10:48:16 AM new
Borillar,
I wouldn't consider voting for any proposal so short on detail. Not that I could actually vote on such an amendment since it is the State legislatures that actually vote to accept amendments to the Constitution.
I think such an amendment is seriously flawed because it contains in its language explicit barriers to implementation and interpretation.
Assume for the moment that such an amendment were in place for the last election. Once again I will ask you...
Who interprets it?
Who enforces it?
If you exclude the government from interpretation and enforcement then I see nothing but chaos (and possibly civil war) as a result.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 28, 2000 06:25:34 PM new
borillar - Sounds okay to me but you have to write Paragraph 2 which specifies the issues that codasaurus is raising. See the history of the United States cleary shows that some of the people reuire that every little detail be spelled out.
Although no Amendment to the Constitution requires spelling out who interprets and who enforces seeing that both issues are spelled out in the Constitution. All AMERICANS know that the Executive Branch is tasked with Defending and Enforcing the Constitution. And all AMERICANS know that the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law.
Now your proposed Amendment has to be reworded from Branch of Governmentto
"Congress nor Legislature can pass legislation which would hinder a full tally of the popular vote where it is reasonably feasible for such tally to take place."
However actually the 15th Amendment implies that your vote must be counted. The problem is the Gore legal team did not prepare arguments that Florida Law violated the 15th Amendment Right of voters. Afterall the Right to Vote implies the Right to have it counted. I said this in another thread part of the problem is that Closet Racism hindered the real constitutional question being raised.
Which was "Can A State Through Legislation and Procedure Not Count VoteP
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:29:29 AM new
Hello networker67,
So you would support Borillar's proposed amendment if it were rephrased as follows?
"The people of America have the right to hold free elections in order to elect such officers as described in the US Constitution. Neither Congress nor Legislature can pass legislation which would hinder a full tally of the popular vote where it is reasonably feasible for such tally to take place."
So I guess I will have to ask you who interprets the words reasonably and feasible?
Inevitably the issue will wind up in court, no matter how a law or statute is worded. It does not matter if the law is broad and vague or if the law is specific and detailed. Whenever there is an issue raised about a law, the issue will ultimately wind up in the courts. Or in the streets as the opposing parties attempt to settle the issue through violence.
Suppose that amendment were in place for the recent election. You would contend that the court should have allowed the recounts because they were reasonably feasible to conduct.
And the opposing party would have argued that the court should have done exactly as they did by disallowing the recounts because the recounts were not reasonably feasible in the time remaining.
I suggest that you accept the decision of the court and devote your efforts to improve the situation in the future. I believe that is what any true American citizen would do.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 11:32:24 AM new
I stopped addressing clarity issues with Southerners effective December 22, 2000. Seems they want to scream States Rights in one argument and then in the next scream we can't read with clarity and understanding so we want everything spelled out or we'll invent every technicality in the book to avoid doing it.
|
HJW
|
posted on December 29, 2000 04:11:43 PM new
networker67
clarity?
screaming southerners?
Helen
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 04:17:25 PM new
Networker67,
All you need to do is answer a simple question.
Who would interpret such an amendment when there is a dispute?
Why not just admit what is obvious to most everyone who follows these conversations. You want a referee to every dispute who will make the call in your favor.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 04:31:37 PM new
codasaurus - Can you read or do you inject for sake of having a place to express opinions that you wouldn't otherwise express in public. The courts interpret the law. It works for me even though my people have been the historic victims of court interpretations.
So your question was asked before you asked it in my first reply. I do remember that I pointed out to you that no Amendment has to specify enforcement or interpretation because that is already clearly spelled out in the Constitution. I made that point to address the fact that you raised mute points in the first place to voice an opinion in the thread. But like I also said seems some people have a problem understanding the Constitution so they require broad detailed interpretation of it.
To quote a famous person
[quote] The only thing Whites in America fear is the their laws.[/quote]
|
toke
|
posted on December 29, 2000 04:42:37 PM new
The only thing Whites in America fear is their laws.
Really. Is that what you believe?
|
HJW
|
posted on December 29, 2000 04:47:11 PM new
wonder what famous person said that?
Helen
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:26:50 PM new
Networker,
The word is spelled moot not mute.
So you agree with me that the courts interpret the laws? And that a true American accepts the rule of law and the judicial decisions that are a result thereof?
And if that true American doesn't happen to agree with a judicial decision, that same true American will work to change the law by electing people to the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government who see things in a similar light?
Or does a true American piss and moan and cry foul whenever the call goes against him?
[ edited by codasaurus on Dec 29, 2000 05:27 PM ]
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:52:02 PM new
They do both,
The moaning as you call it serves to call attention to the problem.
The other aspects come later.
Example for you.
In Ilinois we have had straight ticket voting forever. Well in 1992 Straight Ticket Voting was the direct cause of three key Republicans losing and one Black Woman getting to the United States Senate. Well the republicans cried foul for three months and then immediately wrote legislation to get rid of Straight Ticket Voting.
So there you have your answer. No one of any principles would sit back watch an outrage. They call attention to the problem and then work to correct the problem. Do try to keep in mind this is a democratic process where majority rules.
|
pattaylor
|
posted on December 29, 2000 05:55:54 PM new
networker67,
I must remind you that you are expected to act within the boundaries of basic etiquette when you post here at AW. Posts that insult an entire group of people, or ones that insinuate that others can't read do not fit the criteria.
I strongly suggest you review the Community Guidelines, particularly the section dealing with common sense and basic etiquette.
Pat
[email protected]
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:25:38 PM new
toke - That's what I know and the history of this country clearly backs up that position.
HJW - Stokely Carmicheal said it and when you think about it long and hard its true.
|
stockticker
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:31:49 PM new
Well, I thought about it for 2 seconds - that's all it took. You actually believe that all "white" people have no fear of death.
Irene
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:50:35 PM new
stockticker - Why are you scared of the inevitable? One good thing about it though is the finality that it brings so why be scared of it?
|
stockticker
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:52:19 PM new
Actually I'm not scared of the inevitable. I just don't believe that all "whites" share that viewpoint.
Irene
|
toke
|
posted on December 29, 2000 06:53:02 PM new
Speaking for myself, of course, I fear zealots...not the law. There is reason in the law. Reason is lacking in zealotry, I've noticed.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:43:12 PM new
toke - Interesting statement there is reason to the law. Well if it has so much reason why does it require sooooooo much interpretation? By the same why are so many disenchanted with it being properly interpreted.
stockticker - Let's don't be coy the statement is a generalization of general behavior. Mathematics shows us that nothing is 100%.
|
stockticker
|
posted on December 29, 2000 07:57:54 PM new
Exactly - nothing is 100% so why make false statements saying it is.
All or only = 100%
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Dec 29, 2000 08:00 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:23:56 PM new
Gee, I hate long goodbyes.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:25:44 PM new
whatever, history is on my side to support the statement. You can live with that fact can't you. Or are you up to the challenge of the fear that Brown vs. Board of Education placed in the populace. Or do we address the executive orders in place. How's about when panthers started carrying guns in the 60's. All clear cases of coming to realize that those laws can be your worst enemey towards preserving nonsense.
Heck the Rodney King trial shows that even when attempts are made to make nonsense legal the higher law has to step in to preserve insanity. Strange though it took a a riot for higher law to take action.
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:28:50 PM new
Fleece sweats are great!
|
krs
|
posted on December 29, 2000 08:36:31 PM new
Networker, do you know how to shoot a basketball?
|
twentydollarsack
|
posted on December 30, 2000 09:01:09 PM new
Hey what does shooting a basketball have to do with the topic?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on December 30, 2000 09:02:34 PM new
Never say die.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on December 31, 2000 11:26:22 AM new
Hello Twentydollarsack,
If my memory serves there was a twentydollarsack userid posting on eBay after Networker67 was suspended last year.
Are you related?
|
joice
|
posted on December 31, 2000 12:53:38 PM new
codasaurus,
You seem to be unable to keep yourself from addressing a suspended user which only serves to keep disrupting this forum.
Please stop. Your posting privileges will be in serious jeopardy in short order if you continue.
Joice
Moderator.
|
