American Arrogance

Richard S. wrote:

franco b wrote:Yeah I remember the good old days of jimmy Carter. The pompous posturing manikin you worship is sure to fix all these things. Please keep your profane hands off Saint Ronald.

I guess he realizes people are tired of hearing it's Bush's fault so now......... It's Reagan's Fault!.

mikeandgerry wrote:

stockingfull wrote:
Mike, I meant that election law is a matter that, until Bush v. Gore, was right down "Federalist Main St," in that it was a classic "states' rights" issue, where, in the absence of a clear "textual" justification, "judicial restraint" required that the federal judiciary keep its "activist" hands off.
...

Here's a little primer for ya:
http://www.gumbopages.com/fridge/supremes.html

Now, with Citizens United unloosing corporate bucks on elections, the real Trojan Horse has been revealed: the "conservative bloc" isn't conservative at all; it's a group of Constitutional saboteurs there to hijack the system and perpetuate the rule of the moneyed class in this country.

Never again will the term "activist judges" stick to lefties concerned with picayune things like a woman's right to privacy.

It was never a classic states right issue. It was and always has been a classic federal issue. Quite simply the feds have plenary power in a federal election. Period. In order to use the selective Gore counts Florida would have had to violate the 14th amendment and run past the Dec 12 deadline. There was no practical or expedient remedy that wouldn't violate the law.

The fact of the matter is that the left was simply incensed at the Bush victory and has battled the issue with deflections and misinterpretations that are self-serving and disrespectful of the law--just like they always do when they don't get their way. The last two Q&A make the intent of the writer of your sophomoric link quite evident.

3 USC S.5

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the
day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final
determination of any controversy or contest concerning the
appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by
judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination
shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for
the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior
to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and
shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in
the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

mikeandgerry wrote:LOL Why? Do you think 9 SCOTUS justices got it wrong?

tvb wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:LOL Why? Do you think 9 SCOTUS justices got it wrong?

NIne? A unanimous opinion?

stockingfull wrote::roll: How right you are:
Image

mikeandgerry wrote:
Bush v. Palm Beach. Pay attention if you are going to butt in.

tvb wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:
Bush v. Palm Beach. Pay attention if you are going to butt in.

And here I thought it was about Bush V. Gore.

stockingfull wrote:Hey, you know what just occurred to me?

The original "patriots" actually were "terrorists" who not only didn't salute the flag, or cover their hearts during "God Save the King," but sought to overthrow that gov't and famously attacked an encamped enemy on Christmas night in Trenton.

Those guys were and are our model "patriots." Not conformists, patriots. They were people who decided what the country needed and worked for it THEIR WAY.

franco b wrote:

stockingfull wrote::roll: How right you are:
Image

I see you are handy with Photoshop. Must come in handy when you need to clarify evidence.

Your suggestion to put President Reagan's face on MT. Rushmore, though welcome, is still too soon.

mikeandgerry wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Hey, you know what just occurred to me?

The original "patriots" actually were "terrorists" who not only didn't salute the flag, or cover their hearts during "God Save the King," but sought to overthrow that gov't and famously attacked an encamped enemy on Christmas night in Trenton.

Those guys were and are our model "patriots." Not conformists, patriots. They were people who decided what the country needed and worked for it THEIR WAY.

And it occurred to me that those "original patriots" were traitors to their country of origin... now do you understand why we call democrats unpatriotic when they don't support the president while he defends our country? Quite simply, today's democrats are only fair weather patriots.

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Hey, you know what just occurred to me?

The original "patriots" actually were "terrorists" who not only didn't salute the flag, or cover their hearts during "God Save the King," but sought to overthrow that gov't and famously attacked an encamped enemy on Christmas night in Trenton.

Those guys were and are our model "patriots." Not conformists, patriots. They were people who decided what the country needed and worked for it THEIR WAY.

And it occurred to me that those "original patriots" were traitors to their country of origin... now do you understand why we call democrats unpatriotic when they don't support the president while he defends our country? Quite simply, today's democrats are only fair weather patriots.

That's just gibberish, Mike. You continue (erroneously) to think that you alone are the arbiter of what a "patriotic" cause is.

On the subject of our safety, for example, I think it far more "patriotic" to abandon the cowboy folly of "going it alone" and pursue a more cooperative international solution to keeping the planet safe. And, in fact, if the last presidential election proved nothing else, it was that most Americans agreed that we shouldn't keep trying to be the lone policeman in the world, not only because it does such violence to our ideals, but because it's simply doomed to fail.

And all of those voters were "unpatriotic," Mike?

stockingfull wrote:That's just gibberish, Mike. You continue (erroneously) to think that you alone are the arbiter of what a "patriotic" cause is.

On the subject of our safety, for example, I think it far more "patriotic" to abandon the cowboy folly of "going it alone" and pursue a more cooperative international solution to keeping the planet safe. And, in fact, if the last presidential election proved nothing else, it was that most Americans agreed that we shouldn't keep trying to be the lone policeman in the world, not only because it does such violence to our ideals, but because it's simply doomed to fail.

And all of those voters were "unpatriotic," Mike?