Delay the election? How -

[kyburg]

Go buy this book. Really. I carry mine in my purse.

Unlike a lot of people, I've read the Constitution and a great deal, if not most of it relates to elections and how they are to be run.

And how often the elected bodies are to meet. And so on.

Article 2, Section 4 is very pertinent right now, methinks.

Amendment XX kind of makes it very clear that a presidental term ENDS. And when.

Now, you could argue that the Constitution has not been respected much at all - particularly in the intepretation of the first ten Amendments - during the W administration.

However, you toss out all that, you toss out all chance of having any kind of credibility to simply hold office in the first place.

If they want to take steps to ensure elections won't be hijaked - fine. I am very happy to see the level of attention this is getting. I plan to drop more than one note to my elected nozzles on it - but I am not going to get incensed, flustered or GHAD FORBID - scared out of my sentient mind over it.

CNN recently had a poll on what the public thought the recent terrorist warnings were all about - 93% and better thought it was "politics, nothing more" - I applauded. Took long enough.

Capricorn One, anyone?

--

In other news -

Brandy! More brandy!

Comments

[tima-tic.livejournal.com]

agreed. every morning i wake up and wonder what else could they come up with to muddy the waters even more?

[djstatick.livejournal.com]

At the rate they're going, they just might do away with elections all together. I mean, Bush said it himself "A dictatorship would be so much easier."

¿Cueles Derechos ?

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, Ky. You say “the Constitution has not been respected much at all - particularly in the intepretation of the first ten Amendments - during the W administration.” I like to think of myself as one familiar with the Constitution, and I'm damned if I can figure out what you mean by that. The president hasn't established a national church, banned guns, quartered soldiers in private homes, or interfered with due process. Every thing he's done has been subject to the intense scrutiny of the courts, the Congress, and the media. Even if he was marching people into camps for suspicion of treason based upon their race (like Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt did back in 1942) the courts would probably back him up; the President has extraordinary powers during wartime, and this is wartime. But he hasn't marched anyone into camps. He hasn't shut down any newspapers, radio stations, or TV networks. The staff of NPR hasn't been disappeared in the middle of the night (more's the pity!), and, thanks to his tax cut, Michael "Mecca Mike" Moore will get to keep more of the zillions of bucks he earned from his propaganda sales this year. What kind of a fascist gives his political enemies a fat tax cut?

As far as I can tell, the only oppressive measure that the president has overseen so far is the creation of the army of assholes you meet at the airport x-ray machine. Inconvenient and annoying? Yes. Dictatorial? No. Until I see guys like Noam Chomsky and Al Franken shipped off to re-education camps, I'm going to treat any claims of impending Bushist fascism extremely skeptically.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

Even if he was marching people into camps for suspicion of treason based upon their race (like Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt did back in 1942) the courts would probably back him up; the President has extraordinary powers during wartime, and this is wartime.

Roosevelt did this at the behest of his Republican Secretary of War Stimson. Here's what he had to say about the internment of American Citizens. I'm not saying that Roosevelt's hands are clean, but as you can see, he was not alone in the decision making process.


Bush and his cronies are using similar arguments to back his internment of foreign nationals at Guantanamo without due process. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that those being held did have the right to have their cases heard in a court of law.

This is also the pResident who has "free speech zones" set up anywhere he is scheduled to appear. If you have a dissenting view, then you are told to go to these areas or be arrested. So, how does this protect my right to free speech? Or is it that Bush is just too much a coward to face his critics?

What Oppression?

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Roosevelt did this at the behest of his Republican Secretary of War Stimson.

Got any evidence to back that claim up? I couldn't find any.

FYI, it was General DeWitt that floated the idea to Stimson of creating "exclusionary zones" and relocating American citizens to areas outside those zones. FDR's Executive Order 9066 did just that. The Supreme Court at the time unanimously upheld the President's right to temporarily suspend due process in war zones, by the way, and would probably do so again if (God forbid) it became necessary. [ Source ]

Bush and his cronies are using similar arguments to back his internment of foreign nationals at Guantanamo without due process.

Nope. None of the thousands of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans detained during WW2 were held as enemy combatants.

The Supreme Court ruled that those being held [at Gitmo] did have the right to have their cases heard in a court of law.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that U.S. Federal Courts have a jurisdictonal right of review over habeas corpus cases brought by Guantanamo detainees. However, the Court also decided that subject to Federal Court review the President as commander in chief has the legal authority to detain people as enemy combatants. In effect, the Court has confirmed the President's constitutional authority to detain and hold enemy combatants indefinitely without trial so long as a Federal Judge somewhere signs off on it. Again, Bush has violated no constitutional rights. [Source ].

This is also the pResident who has "free speech zones" set up anywhere he is scheduled to appear. If you have a dissenting view, then you are told to go to these areas or be arrested. So, how does this protect my right to free speech? Or is it that Bush is just too much a coward to face his critics?

If he is, then impeached former president Clinton was a "coward", too. He was a big fan of "free speech zones".

On March 12, 1999, President Clinton went to Texarkana, Texas, my home state, to attend several fundraisers for Representative Max Sandlin. Folks from the popular political web site, FreeRepublic.com, outraged by his political machinations and the recent allegations of rape, planned to stage a peaceful protest. They would exercise the right to free speech by calling for his resignation; they would exercise the right to peacefully assemble by being in full view on the public right-of-way outside the hotel; they would petition for redress of grievances (certainly, the tainted blood scandal and illegal transfer of launch technology to Communist China, to name a few, are grievances); and they would encourage freedom of the press by revealing that not everyone on the evening's broadcast adored the President or thought he had a high job-approval rating.

These protestors, however, were not allowed to be present when the cameras rolled. They were reluctantly escorted by apologetic local police, under orders from the SS (Secret Service), to the back of the hotel and kept behind a chain-link fence topped with barbwire. When the Clinton entourage pulled into view of the rolling cameras, only several adoring Clinton fans were present. . [ Source ]

In fact, the Democratic National Committe loves Free Speech Zones so much that they're setting up some for this summer's convention:

Protesters at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Boston may be confined to a cozy triangle of land off Haymarket Square, blocked off from the FleetCenter and convention delegates...[U]nder a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street... [ Source ]

I repeat: what constitutional rights has President Bush trampled? I see no evidence that he has denied anybody their rights.

Re: What Oppression?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

There's plenty. Go talk to the folks at Japanese-American Museum. I can also provide you a reading list, if you like -

And "redefining" what these people are really doesn't change the fact they're being held in violation of due process, does it? D'ya think the President is the only person in violation? I don't.

"Free-speech zones" likely go back to Reagan, and beyond. Oh, that's right. Back in the day, if the college campuses here got too vocal, he closed the campuses and instituted martial law in their communities. Yes, that really happened here.

One has to wonder though - there have been recent reports that neither the President or the Vice President are dealing with detractors well. Matter of fact, the profanity shows a decided lack of maturity, don't you think? Yes, this is setting a lovely example - "Fuck Off" and flipping people the bird. Wonderful.

Funny how things go - I also got the below this morning from one of my senators, Barbara Boxer:

In response to recent disclosures that the Administration is
actively discussing postponing election day in the case of a
terrorist attack, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer issued the
following statement.

STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

To even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent
symbol of American democracy, because of threats made by
terrorists would be nothing short of allowing fear to rule our
country. America is too great and too strong and too brave for
that.

If this Administration is so concerned about the possibility of
terrorist attacks disrupting U.S. elections, the priority
should be how to best defend against those attacks, not how to
close polling places.

We need to pass the Rail Security and Port Security bills, both
of which passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce
Committee in April. We need to pass my Homeland Defense Act,
legislation authorizing grants for our local first responders
so they can purchase interoperable communications systems that
will allow them to talk to one another in the event of a
terrorist attack. And we need to put more federal dollars
toward funding these Homeland Security initiatives, including
our local first responders.

We are focusing far too many of our resources abroad trying to
bring democracy to others while this Administration seems
completely at a loss on how to protect us here at home. All we
hear about is fear from them and no plan. It is time to stop
the fear-mongering and start protecting our people, our
homeland, and our democracy here at home.

--

Yeah, I'd like some of the money I've paid to be spent on me. Flown lately? I felt safer in November of 2001.

Re: What Oppression?

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

I realize that you dislike the President, Ky, and that's okay with me, but I'm still waiting for some evidence to back up the claim that he's somehow trampling the Bill of Rights. The Guantanamo detainees, for example, are receiving due process — the Supreme Court said so. It's just that “due process” means something different in the case of enemy combatants. All the Court said was that in the future a Federal judge has to sign off on each individual case. No constitutional harm, no constitutional foul.

I repeat: I have yet to see any evidence that President Bush is eroding our constitutional rights. Every act he has taken has been subject to the harshest of legal review, and so far no indictments or move for impeachment. A supposed "lack of maturity" isn't fascism, and neither is being inarticulate; being unable to pronounce “nuclear“ correctly does not il Duce make.

If you want real fascism, look no further than Canada and Sweden the Islamic idiots we're fighting : clitoris-cutting, priceless-artwork-destroying, mind-controlling fanatics to a man. Any one of them would gladly blow up an atom bomb in your or my neighborhood if they could. We are at war, Ky, and the enemy we face is in many ways far more evil and dangerous than Hitler and Tojo ever were. The Islamic fascists cannot be reasoned with, bought off, or co-opted; they can't even be invaded or occupied. They quite simply want us all to die, case closed. Therefore, all we can do to prevent that is to kill them first, and keep on killing them by the bushel-basketful until there aren't enough of them left to hurt us.

Against an enemy like that, our only chance of winning is by putting aside our politics and backing the President who is fighting them. I have no problem with those who oppose the President's tax policies or whatever; people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how uninformed or philosophically suspect they may be. But to actively oppose the Comander in Chief in time of war just doesn't make sense.

My two cents, and worth every penny paid.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the 50,000+ people in Florida who's votes were taken away by the Bush team. Their rights were trampled.

I seriously doubt I'm going to convince you, so I'll just leave it there.

Trampled

[bitpig.livejournal.com]

Sure, you can convince me. I have an open mind. Show me some hard, concrete evidence to back assertons made, and I'll consider any case, no matter how outlandish.

But I've yet to see any evidence to support your claim that 50K voters were somehow disenfranchised during the 2000 election. If you have some, I encourage you to send it my way and I'll look at it. Also, as a patriotic American, I urge you to file a case in Federal District Court and pursue the matter vigorously. (If you have evidence, you will have no problem finding an ACLU attorney to take the case pro bono).

Since no such case has been succesfully filed, I can only assume that no grounds for such a case exist.

Sorry, but until I see some evidence to the contrary, my opinion is that nobody's voting rights were trampled in Florida. The President was legally elected gaining the most votes in the Electoral College, just as the constitution specifies, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. You may not want to accept it, but those are the facts.

And I'm stlll waiting for a concrete example of the Bush administration infringing upon our constititutional rights. Lacking that, I can only assume that the people who hate him do so for irrational reasons.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Come on, you can dig up what's known - go back and get that piece on the records "scrubbed" due to name mismatches.

I'm at work. Go for it.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

*crickets chirping*

Hooookay, Jim has left the building.

*tap dances*

Aw, screw it.