OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case

[John Fields]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:52:12 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

In <0k4b51t3t9gfocqpla7fcug83tpdpd6kar@4ax.com>, on 04/07/05
at 01:07 PM, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> said:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:20:44 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

[snip]

No, I have paid all of my life, and will receive nothing. I believe that
is pretty obvious.

[snip]

You keep saying that, and I don't understand.

WHY "...will receive nothing" ??

I deleted the long answer, and will try the shorter method After
paying in all my life, the politicians kindly giving me back an IV style
drip, drip, drip in tiny amounts of cash which will barely sustain my
life, and not likely allow me to even keep my home, is nothing.

Putting the money where I wanted to put it, investing it, or even paying
off my home ahead of schedule is something useful, and worth working for.
Being in control of my destiny is my idea of living. Tying my hands,
stealing my income, and then giving it back, in little tiny increments,
long after I could have put it to good use, is nothing.

That ain't living. That's nothing.

Being forced out of the workplace, and into "sit on your ass and barely
live" retirement was not ever a goal of mine. Some people work all their
lives so they can enjoy their "golden years" I wanted to enjoy ALL of my
life, not just the last ten, which I may not even live to see anyway.

I would rather have had the tens of thousand of dollars I paid in just
during the booming 90s, to invest, and to improve my life for those ten
years when I was happy healthy, young, trying to be a good parent, and
funding all kinds of activities in my families life. Instead, it was taken
from me, and given to someone else, and maybe later, if I live long
enough. I can have it back, but not with those incredible interest rates
that could be had during the dot com boom days. If I die tomorrow, its not
me they stole from, but my children who lost out on a lot of things
because 15% of my income was stolen from me.

When considering my position and attitude towards SS, it is important to
add in the costs of of the program to all of our society, for all that it
impacts, not just the 15% of the money I earned. It stole from the people,
and gave power to a domineering government who beats us over the head with
it every time they want to get us back in line. SS is nearly a weapon of
mass destruction against the citizens. If it was not a tool of power and
fear mongering for politicians, I could probably get along with the basic
premise, but not only do they steal our money, when we could be making the
best use of it, but then they turn around and abuse us with it, and that
turn us from free people, into wards of the state. It is the entire
system/process that turns my stomach, and makes me long for a day when men
had character, and were willing to stand up and fight for what is right,
even if it means losing that cell phone, the boat or the SUV, and the HDTV
connection. Stealing from the next generation is a gutless thing to do.

That is who I am and the older I get, the more convinced I am, that I am
right, and also alone in that mindset. <shrug

---
So, now that you've given up and you want to blame all of your
failures on someone other than yourself, you want to die blamelessly?
Fat chance... Your life was yours to do with what you chose from the
moment you were born, and if you're unhappy with the way it's turned
out, then _you_ were instrumental in that failure. If you knew
something was wrong when it was new and you didn't rail against it
then, what makes you think that mere complaints now will make it
right? Because you're older and wiser now, and just because of that
everyone will perk up and listen to you?

It ain't gonna happen.

Your rhetoric is self-serving and far from convincing. It seems, for
example, that you would prefer that everyone who hadn't prepared for
their future in the way which _you_ would prefer (which, by the way, I
don't think you've outlined clearly) would have no future, yet you
offer no concrete examples of how that brighter futurer could be
brought about.

Instead, you seem to prefer to grouse about what could have been and
why the sun is setting on you without deference to your majesty.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

In <i2ib51h0evttrv7o49eecf939rqtqmq9bg@4ax.com>, on 04/07/05
at 07:30 PM, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> said:

Your rhetoric is self-serving and far from convincing. It seems, for
example, that you would prefer that everyone who hadn't prepared for
their future in the way which _you_ would prefer (which, by the way, I
don't think you've outlined clearly) would have no future, yet you offer
no concrete examples of how that brighter futurer could be brought about.

My position is quite clear. A man should be free to choose his own
destiny, and more importantly, that the federal government has no business
sticking its nose into a person's family, their education, their
retirement, the amount of water that their toilet uses, or anything else
that is not clearly outlined in the Constitution. Beyond that, you are
simply not paying attention to what is being said, preferring instead, to
make stuff up in order to be confrontational.

Instead, you seem to prefer to grouse about what could have been and why
the sun is setting on you without deference to your majesty.

So first you embarass yourself with your "fuck" rant, and now you solicit
a conversation?

I believe that you are attempting to put words into my statements that are
not there, and I submit that you are incapable of having a normal
conversation, of give and take. Not only did I never complain about being
out of work at the moment, but I also never, ever outlined a method for
preparing for retirement. You made that up. I NEVER said anything about
how I would prefer to work out any retirement. No one asked, it was never
a topic. All I said was people ought to be free to choose the path they
take, and learn to be accountable for their actions, and that government
should stay out of it.

It is not going to avail you anything to create a straw man with my name
on it, and then try to dismember it. Who cares what you think about
things that you make up?

What I don't understand is why you invent things, attribute them to me,
and then embarass yourself by trying to put me down for words that I never
even said?

When you figure out who you are, and what you stand for, maybe there is a
conversation to be had. Until then, I just see you as the "fuck man" and
really not worth bothering with.

JB

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:06:01 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.04.07.20.22.33.855734@example.com>, Rich The
Newsgropup Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote: [...]
When will the government repay War Loan?

When Science reaches -274C.

Be careful, I think thats already been done.


I think is was like this: You cool something in a very strong magnetic
field and then reduce the field. The electrons then have a minus absolute
temperature in that they briefly have less energy than they would at
absolute zero.

Well, that tears it then. Hell has officially frozen over.

They say there's a way to survive the cataclysm.

Love,
Rich

for further information, please visit http://www.godchannel.com

 

[Bob Monsen]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:43:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Ignoring 'overvotes' is proper by every state law that I know of...
multiple votes VOID a ballot.

Actually, it's valid in Florida, unless those guys at CommonDreams are
lying.

"Voter's intention" is a "hare-brained liberal rag" phraseology which
holds no legal status.

Maybe. After the election was certified, nothing anybody said made any
difference. It makes even less difference now, almost 5 years later. My
main point wasn't to whine about the election, it was to point out the
oddities that can occur when you have a strange electoral system like ours.

> ...Jim Thompson

 

[Bob Monsen]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:25:51 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
I don't want to get into a brawl here, but analysis after the fact of
the 2000 election pointed out that Gore would have won Florida had the
US supreme court not overruled the Florida supreme court.

That is what the media would like for you to think, but if you check out
the NORC, you will find that they did not check all of the disputed
ballots. There were as many as 179,855 disputed ballots, the NORC
checked 175,010 of those ballots. A partial recount by the media does
not prove Gore would have won.


It also doesn't prove that he would not have. The point is that the

Supreme Court stepped in, against all expectations, to overturn the
Florida Supreme Court.

Read the minority opinion. Here is a quote:

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida
election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality
and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if
the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly
without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this
Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of
judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who
administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of
law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be
inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we
may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this
year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly
clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian
of the rule of law."

"I respectfully dissent."

 

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I think a _mandatory_ percentage of your income going into some kind
of retirement plan is wise, otherwise most people won't save anything
until they're suddenly _there_.

Wow !

Did you realise that makes you a Social Democrat in the European context ?

How this is managed, enforced and "guaranteed" remains to be seen.

Too right.

Social Security, as it presently exists, is a pathetic excuse for a
retirement plan.

Also too right ! Likewise here.

Asking the private sector to take over is a con. They can make big losses and
some firms go bust - oh - great so where's my pension ? I damn near chose one
of the supposed best UK institutions only to discover later that they had made
unrealistic projections that called them to count and the company effectively
had to close.

Ever noticed how pensions salesmen drive Porsches too ? I'm not interested in
subsidising a guy who simply tells me what I already know. I know of no other
area where the salesman is given such a slice of your income.

It should be the job of the Government to provide secure - low risk pension
funds IMHO. Damn, they like borrowing - what better than an income stream from
pension contributions ?


Graham

 

In <pan.2005.04.08.05.21.38.364463@comast.net>, on 04/07/05
at 10:21 PM, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comast.net> said:

It also doesn't prove that he would not have. The point is that the
Supreme Court stepped in, against all expectations, to overturn the
Florida Supreme Court.

So basically, you want the Constitution upheld when it benefits your
cause, and its okay to override it when it is detrimental to your
position.

That's what happens in a democracy, which is why democracies are evil.
Popular opinion overrides the law. It was okay for the executive branch to
steal Elian from his home and deport him against a judicial order, but it
is not okay for the executive branch to save a woman's life, because a
judge forbade it.

Its one thing to hang on desperately to the past, and whine and moan, but
what ought to be happening is those efforts need to be directed towards a
civil war (violent, or non violent, whichever it takes) which will result
in either a new government, or a return to the Constitutional form of
goverment we are supposed to be following. As long as we have both and/or
neither, there will be folks on both sides angry and upset over how things
are done.

At least the people in Cuba and Iran, and other such great nations know
the rules, and what to expect. In the US, the rules are made on the fly,
and based on someone's opinion, rather than the laws as they are written.
Until that is rectified, we will hear the left cry about the 2000
election, and the right moan about right-to-life, etc, etc, etc, ad
nauseum, and forever.

BTW, if Gore had only managed to win the votes of his own home state, none
of this would have happend, but he was unable to convince the very same
people who let him be a senator, that he was qualified to be President. If
those who supposedly know him, and live around him (yea, right) didn't
want him in the White House, I would say that justice was served.

JB

 

In <42564311.E2AE6E47@hotmail.com>, on 04/08/05
at 09:38 AM, Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said:

It should be the job of the Government to provide secure - low risk
pension funds IMHO.

In case no one noticed, I think that is a really stupid idea. I search
high and low in the Constitution and find no place wherein they are
authorized to be our babysitters.

Beyond all that disagreement, why would anyone with even a modicum of
intelligence let someone else be responsible for their retirement plan,
when those they would put in charge do not even participate, and in fact,
have seen how bad SS is, and created their own special nest egg program.
Its been said a million times, but if you want the government to make
socialist security work, then make them participate and depend on it just
like we do. That would fix it up in about 6 months.

Would anyone dine in a restaurant where the owner refuses to eat the food?

There are probably ways to do a great job with retirement issues without
bringing in the Congress of the United States. We have already seen how
badly they handle it. So far, what I am reading is that "Congress screwed
it up, so let's let them go ahead and fix it." Not too brilliant.

What ever became of that wise old phrase that "insanity is doing the same
thing, over and over again, and expecting the results to be different"

Time for a major change. The federal government has already proven they
are totally incapable of taking care of it. Why wait around hoping that
their next effort will be the right one?

JB

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:11:24 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

[snip]

What ever became of that wise old phrase that "insanity is doing the same
thing, over and over again, and expecting the results to be different"

[snip]

So WHY do YOU keep doing it ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

In <f28d515os7csfrs6nskdseu2p7e5pe4us6@4ax.com>, on 04/08/05
at 08:17 AM, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> said:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:11:24 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

[snip]

What ever became of that wise old phrase that "insanity is doing the same
thing, over and over again, and expecting the results to be different"

[snip]

So WHY do YOU keep doing it ?

Since I see that I am the only one who thinks this way, then it really is
a waste of time. Just posting in a newgroup won't bring about necessary
adjustments, but I stupidly thought it might help to point out the
futility of government sponsored theft of our cash. I was wrong, and I am
done with it, so this can end right here <g>

Change is a scary thing to people who have been indoctrinated into one way
of thinking. Those who have never been taught that things were not always
the way that they are, become convinced that they are right, and to do
anything else might upset someone, or cause some emotional or physical
distress. We cannot have anyone giving up anything, other than their
money, and their right to choose their own path. There is no hope for
people not willing to sacrifice for the greater good.

It is inherently wrong for those who are correctly, and freely excercising
their right to choose to allow the government to care for them, to stand
and shout down those who do not think that is the proper way to get it
done. Its only freedom if EVERYONE enjoys it.

However, you are right, and I will pass on this anymore. My path is
already chosen, and there is nothing for me to do but live the last few
years I have been given, and hope that someone, anyone, does the right
thing for the benefit of all of our children, and their's as well.

Keep up the good work.

JB

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
<4256aab3$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'OT: Civil War Narrowly
Averted in Schiavo Case', on Fri, 8 Apr 2005:

However, you are right, and I will pass on this anymore. My path is
already chosen, and there is nothing for me to do but live the last few
years I have been given, and hope that someone, anyone, does the right
thing for the benefit of all of our children, and their's as well.

I think that you are depressed, and I'm not going to tell you to look on
the bright side or anything.

It's true that governments should govern, and not act as manufacturers,
railroad or airline companies, OR BANKS OR INSURANCE COMPANIES. They do
the latter because there is no guarantee that the private insurance
company you invested in when you were 20 will still be there when you
are 80. But it isn't beyond the wit of man to set up trusts that WILL
provide that long-term security AND give people the sort of return that
they have a reasonable expectation of, considering the very low exposure
involved.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

I think that you are depressed, and I'm not going to tell you to look on
the bright side or anything.

Thanks Doc. I appreciate your diagnosis. I am not understanding why
someone who thinks that our government is out of control and damaging our
lives is considered depressed Imagine how much prozac the Founding
Fathers would have needed?

It's true that governments should govern, and not act as manufacturers,
railroad or airline companies, OR BANKS OR INSURANCE COMPANIES. They do
the latter because there is no guarantee that the private insurance
company you invested in when you were 20 will still be there when you
are 80.

Well, I think they do the "latter" because it gives them a hammer to abuse
us with, and a noose to restrain us. Its about power, its not about making
things better. Its not like they spend any time at all in their offices
wondering what they can do to make American lives better. If something
useful does come out of that sewer, it is not because the motivation was
love and concern for the citizens and their posterity, but it is going to
have been based on "what can I do, to get re-elected, and gain more power
and control, and of course, money"

It does not take a mathematician to see that social security, as presently
configured, is a pyramid scheme that will eventually collapse upon itself,
but we are not seeing attempts to fix the problems so people will not be
harmed, we are seeing politicians posturing for the best photo op, the
best quote, and the best chance of being re-elected and keeping their pork
barrels. If they really cared about you and me, the very least we would
get is a response that, 'yes, the math and common sense shows a problem,
and we need to address it. Let's get after it" At the moment, the left is
saying all is well, because it will not benefit them to address it at this
point in time. This is better saved for when hillary is up for president,
and then they will see the opportunity to use it to overcome the
elephants, not to avoid hurting individuals, and crippling our children,
but to insure their continued access to power.

But it isn't beyond the wit of man to set up trusts that WILL
provide that long-term security AND give people the sort of return that
they have a reasonable expectation of, considering the very low exposure
involved.

And in spite of "fuck man's" opinion, that is what I have been doing. We
have to look our for ourselves, and so I did. I only wish I could have
added to what I have done, and then I would be even better able to help my
family, and insure the enjoyment of the last few years of life.

Now, if I only had better medical insurance, I could get those drugs that
would make it all better

JB

 

[Mark Cook]

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.08.05.21.38.364463@comast.net...

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:25:51 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
I don't want to get into a brawl here, but analysis after the fact of
the 2000 election pointed out that Gore would have won Florida had the
US supreme court not overruled the Florida supreme court.

That is what the media would like for you to think, but if you check out
the NORC, you will find that they did not check all of the disputed
ballots. There were as many as 179,855 disputed ballots, the NORC
checked 175,010 of those ballots. A partial recount by the media does
not prove Gore would have won.

It also doesn't prove that he would not have.

You are completely missing the point of the study. It was not to prove who
won or lost, it was to study the problems with the voting systems used in
the state.

Gore could win all of those "counting scenarios", but that would NOT have
proven that he won because those scenarios MUST be in compliance with 3
U.S.C. section 5, or they would have been disqualified by the US House.

Bush won under the existing laws of the state of Florida, thus those were
the legal slate of electors. The recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme
Court violated 3 U.S.C. section 5, thus if that count would have been
allowed to continue, the results would have been invalid.

The point is that the
Supreme Court stepped in, against all expectations, to overturn the
Florida Supreme Court.

As they should have. The Constitution does not allow for a state court to
rewrite state election law, that is a violation of Article II of the US
Constitution.

Read the minority opinion. Here is a quote:

Is this the same dissent who believed that two idential ballots from
idential machines do not mean the same thing?

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida
election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality
and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if
the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly
without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this
Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of
judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who
administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of
law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be
inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we
may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this
year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly
clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian
of the rule of law."

"I respectfully dissent."

 

[Mark Cook]

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.08.05.00.40.997799@comast.net...

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:43:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Ignoring 'overvotes' is proper by every state law that I know of...
multiple votes VOID a ballot.


Actually, it's valid in Florida, unless those guys at CommonDreams are
lying.

Fla. Stat. 101.5614(6) (2000)

"(6) If an elector marks more names than there are persons to be elected to
an office or if it is impossible to determine the elector's choice, the
elector's ballot shall not be counted for that office, but the ballot shall
not be invalidated as to those names which are properly marked."

David Boies, Gore's attorney, argued before the US Surpreme Court that he
did not challenge the overvoted ballots because they were not legal votes.

"Voter's intention" is a "hare-brained liberal rag" phraseology which
holds no legal status.


Maybe. After the election was certified, nothing anybody said made any
difference. It makes even less difference now, almost 5 years later. My
main point wasn't to whine about the election, it was to point out the
oddities that can occur when you have a strange electoral system like
ours.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Bob Monsen]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:11:19 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.08.05.00.40.997799@comast.net...
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 07:43:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Ignoring 'overvotes' is proper by every state law that I know of...
multiple votes VOID a ballot.


Actually, it's valid in Florida, unless those guys at CommonDreams are
lying.

Fla. Stat. 101.5614(6) (2000)

"(6) If an elector marks more names than there are persons to be
elected to an office or if it is impossible to determine the elector's
choice, the elector's ballot shall not be counted for that office, but
the ballot shall not be invalidated as to those names which are properly
marked."

David Boies, Gore's attorney, argued before the US Surpreme Court that
he did not challenge the overvoted ballots because they were not legal
votes.

Your quote contradicts the legislature in Florida, which ruled that the
only legal standard for counting votes was 'the clear intent of the
voter'. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court did not change this to
some clearer standard was the basis of the US Supreme Court's final
decision.

The fact that there were contradictory rules was the real problem.
However, the Florida supreme court were put in a pickle. They couldn't
rule on the statement above, and set some clearer standard, because they
were not allowed to change the law after the election without being
overturned. Their ruling to continue recounts was upholding the existing
law (the declaration above).

The US supreme court, however, decided that, in this particular case, and
no other (there are 33 other states that use the same wording as Florida)
that the above declaration of the legislature wasn't precise enough to be
valid. Thus, because the supreme court in florida did not come up with a
better standard, they can't use such an imprecise wording to be the basis
of a decision that the recount continue.

The upshot was that Bush was declared the victor by default, since his
(diminishing) lead was still something like 150 votes.

Yet another issue with the US supreme court was that Both Scalia and
Thomas had personal stakes in Bush winning; Scalia's sons were laywers for
bush, and Thomas' wife was also working for bush, preparing for the
administration. Thus, either one or both of them should have recused
themselves. The fact that they didn't is scandalous.

http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm

----
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Bob Monsen]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:38:05 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.04.08.05.21.38.364463@comast.net...
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:25:51 +0000, Mark Cook wrote:

"Bob Monsen" <rcsurname@comast.net> wrote in message
I don't want to get into a brawl here, but analysis after the fact
of the 2000 election pointed out that Gore would have won Florida
had the US supreme court not overruled the Florida supreme court.

That is what the media would like for you to think, but if you check
out the NORC, you will find that they did not check all of the
disputed ballots. There were as many as 179,855 disputed ballots, the
NORC checked 175,010 of those ballots. A partial recount by the media
does not prove Gore would have won.

It also doesn't prove that he would not have.

You are completely missing the point of the study. It was not to prove
who won or lost, it was to study the problems with the voting systems
used in the state.

So, you are saying that it doesn't prove that Gore would not have won?

Gore could win all of those "counting scenarios", but that would NOT
have proven that he won because those scenarios MUST be in compliance
with 3 U.S.C. section 5, or they would have been disqualified by the US
House.

Bush won under the existing laws of the state of Florida, thus those
were the legal slate of electors.

Actually, this is untrue. The existing laws in Florida were ruled invalid.
That is the basis the US Supreme Court used to stop the recount.

The recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5, thus if that count would have been allowed to continue, the
results would have been invalid.

The (renewed) recount was an attempt to carry out the election according
to Florida state law, which had been made prior to the election. Thus, the
supreme court ruling was, in effect, a statement that Florida cannot
choose how it carries out it's elections. However, no other states amongst
the 33 others which use wording identical to that which the us supreme
court objected to were included in the ruling.

The point wasn't to make law, or to rule on law. The point was to stop the
recount, which was slowly eroding GW Bush's precarious lead.

The point is that the
Supreme Court stepped in, against all expectations, to overturn the
Florida Supreme Court.

As they should have. The Constitution does not allow for a state court
to rewrite state election law, that is a violation of Article II of the
US Constitution.

I've already pointed out that the ruling to continue the recount was an
effort to *uphold* Florida state law, as rendered by the state legislature
prior to the election.

In effect, the US Supreme Court indicated that ANY attempt by the Florida
Supreme Court to make any ruling on this matter might have changed the
rules under which the post ruling votes were recounted. Thus, the votes
counted before were not interpreted identially due to the equal protection
clause.

However, two of the dissenting justices (Souter and Breyer) believed that
a constitutional recount could be done. Two others, (Ginsberg and Stevens)
believed that for reasons of Federalism, the FSC ruling should be
respected, and that it was (because it was an attempt to count every vote,
which is required by the constitution) actually in accord with the US
constitution. The quote I posted earlier (and again below) is from that
last minority opinion.

The five remaining justices decided that there was not enough time to
perform an adequate recount, and that because of this, the results du jour
should stand. This amounted to an appointment of GW Bush as president of
the united states.

Read the minority opinion. Here is a quote:

Is this the same dissent who believed that two idential ballots from
idential machines do not mean the same thing?

"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida
election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the
impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the
critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their
position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by
the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical
appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence
in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the
true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to
that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing,
however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty
the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the
identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence
in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

"I respectfully dissent."

You may wish to actually read this. I find it terribly disturbing.

----
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

Every time you bottom posters hide your replies in the
previous message it's more mouse clicks for my poor tired arthritic
fingers. Typical Republican, no consideration for others.


On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:35:16 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:17:59 -0500, ratman wrote:

You prefer BORROW and SPEND Republicans?

Dumb-fuck top-poster, if that's the only alternative. You bet your ASS!
The DemonRats have shown that they can *always* waste more than we can
produce.

 

[Clarence_A]

<ratman@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:4deg51trvt8gv7u94v0shpkn3dobfluf90@4ax.com...

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:35:16 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:17:59 -0500, ratman wrote:

You prefer BORROW and SPEND Republicans?
keith speak> top-poster, if that's the only alternative. You
bet your <keith speak>!
The DemonRats have shown that they can *always* waste more than
we can
produce.

Every time you bottom posters hide your replies in the
previous message it's more mouse clicks for my poor tired
arthritic
fingers. Typical Republican, no consideration for others.

Bottom posting 'IS' the convention here.
Personally I rarely respond to anyone who is so rude as to ignore
the curtsey of complying with common usage.

I might add, Typical DemonRat, no consideration for reality.

BTW there is a little wheel on your mouse, it scrolls the page
with little effort. Try it. It works!

 

[Terry Given]

learning@learning.com wrote:

In <425429b1$0$43992$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, on 04/06/05
at 06:25 PM, "Roger Johansson" <no-email@no.invalid> said:


learning@learning.com wrote:


Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are
'preset' and unchangeable.


We have constitutions in all countries in Europe too.


Who wrote them? Who voted on them? How did they come to be the rule of
law? I don't know all that history, so I am sure some are legit, and
others are just paper hanging on the wall.


The constitution cannot be changed by the sitting parliament, but it can
be changed by two consecutive elected parliaments.
I am sure there is a similar mechanism for changing the constitution in
USA too.


The individual states can vote to alter the Constitution, but it is hardly
a simple majority effort. It has proven to be a fairly long, drawn out
process, which is in line with the idea of making sure a 50.1% majority
cannot alter it.


So the only difference is the almost religious belief in an eternal
constitution they have convinced the people of in USA.
The american people have been led to believe that democracy is
dangerous, and that a constitution written hundreds of years ago is the
wisest document ever written.


Well, you are most welcome to your position, but you will find that many
consider the Constitution to be inspired by God, so yes, even if it is
"old" I have not seen anything better come along.

religious nonsense. "the boogeyman did it" Yeah, Right. A shame really,
you're doing fine with rational arguments.

Frankly, I think history shows that it IS the wisest document ever
written. I am open to learning of a more successful one.

I grew up studying the document, before the government took over the
schools and stopped allowing such study, and I think it is nearly as
perfect as man could be expected to have it be. I think that its existence
is the reason the US grew so fast to become arguably the greatest nation
the world has ever known. I also think that once we decided it was "old'
and not worthy of being followed, we find that there is nothing great
about the US, and that its future is not very bright if this path is
followed. With the Constitution, the US was an unbeatable force, and a
beacon of freedom and light to the world. Without it, the US is just
falling apart like every other nation in history which walks away from its
basic foundations, and creates rule and laws depending on which direction
the wind is blowing.

I do not know of any precepts in the Constitution that are "outdated" or
need to be removed due to its age. I am listening tho.


That's the way the rich in USA can keep the
power and sabotage democracy. It is the basis for the corporate state
which is working more fore the big corporations than for the people.


You are a bit confused, in that the powerful, and rich corportate entities
are the ones who have destroyed the US Constitution. They are NOT
sabotaging democracy, they are sabotaging the republic, and replacing it
with democracy, which is one reason why we are the sad nation we have
become, and why much of the rest of the world understandably despises the
US. Heck, I live here, and I am hardly thrilled with what I am seeing, so
for those who hate us, I understand that, and I wish I could fix it
myself.

The corporate state which you rightfully decry, is not based on the
precepts in the Constitution.

The upper levels of government are about protecting the basic rights of
individuals, so I am not sure why those would need to be changed over time
anyway. People should always have the right to freedom of speech,
religion, assembly, redress of grievances, etc. I would be concerned with
a country that wanted to do away with those basic tenets of society.

I know we will not agree, but I think its fine to repaint, get new
furniture, hang new pictures, and even add a new deck or a big garage,
but the foundation of the house ought not be altered, or we risk the
possibility of it collapsing. Now starting over, and building a whole new
house is a different thing, which is what the founders of the US actually
did, and it worked, until "wiser men" came along and threw away everything
that was originally intended.

The US is crumbling from within because we are ignoring the Constitution,
and the rules are changing about every four years, which is no way to run
a nation. I cannot defend what is going on here, I abhore it, but I know
of no way to slow or stop the eventual collapse.


In a real democracy the ultimate power always comes from the will of the
people.


That is true, and that is how dictatorships are born. The definition of
"people" in that scenario, is 'majority' and that means that the minority
always suffers under such a system. That is why I do not approve of
majority rules, in the highest levels of the government. That is called
tyranny, and I object to that.

"a democracy is two foxes and a chicken, talking about what to have for
lunch."

I prefer the basic rules to be known, and unchangeable. Anything less is a
dictatorship, or as I said, tyranny. When men make the rules, men can
change the rules.


That is true both for USA and all other modern countries.


Again, the USA, as defined in the Constitution, is NOT a democracy at the
federal levels.


The constitution is the mechanism which prevents the people from changing
important things on a whim, that is why the constitution can only be
changed by two elected parliaments, so the people have to say twice
through elections that they want a new constitution.


So we agree. A constitutional republic is a better form than a democracy.
In a democracy, the people in power can change the rules rather
dynamically. In the republic, the process is difficult, and does not
happen "over night." and it cannot be accomplished with just a simple
majority vote.

I am not gonna claim allknowing knowledge of the history of all the
world's nations but many of the Constitutions you refer to, are born
of the US Constitution, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. If followed,
men would be more free, and better able to take care of themselves.

A study of the history of the Constitution, or even a web search for
"republic versus democray" will provide more than ample amounts of
information on the formation of the US Constitution, and the mindset of
the framers who desperately wanted to avoid a democracy, having lived
through, and observed the history of such societies.

More than anything else, there is no need to get deep and into a war here,
because men will always screw things up, and no government is perfect, but
the ideal is what we need to be aiming for, and I think that is the
Constitutional Republic, not the democratic society.



JB

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

ratman@execpc.com wrote:

Every time you bottom posters hide your replies in the
previous message it's more mouse clicks for my poor tired arthritic
fingers. Typical Republican, no consideration for others.

If its so much trouble just turn off the computer and go to bed.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida