Quantcast

Vote

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by drec, Aug 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,792
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    You're exactly right. Here in Arkansas, we went from a Yellow Dog Democrat state to a Republican state -- All of our Senators and Representatives are Republicans, we have almost a 3/4 majority in the State Senate and almost a 2/3 majority in the State House. All Seven Constitutional Officers (governor, Lieutenant Governor and so on) are Republicans.

    And all kinds of good things are happening. The state is solvent, with cash reserves, we have good gun laws and getting better and better.

    One example that's easy to tell about is the State Auditor. The Auditor's office went from 35 to 24 employees when a Republican took over. One who left was the "Chief of Staff" (for an office of 35 people!?!) who made $20K MORE than the Auditor.

    Another person was the guy who drove to the central Post Office and picked up the mail -- the Post Office DELIVERS mail to the Capitol Building!!
     
  2. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Thank you for this peak into your alternate universe; but I've got a newsflash for you: Whether or not a law is repugnant to the Constitution is not your call.

    What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

    The Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

    The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

    So whether or not a law is repugnant under the Constitution is up to the federal courts and not you.

    The opinions of courts on matters of law, including the meaning and application of the Constitution, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
     
  3. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,792
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I get the feeling we are talking to a few people who are determined NOT to do any work, and are frantically looking to justify themselves.
     
  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    55,660
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    So you're saying if we win it was because that was what the Svengalis intended and the work and maneuvering and building alliances to stop the trickery was all because we were permitted to think we were accomplishing anything? Not just in TN, but in the other states where we've worked and changed the law? Because it was what was going to happen anyway because ... why? It's all predestined? It's all controlled from both sides and we're just being distracted by a false feeling of accomplishment because we'd be too much trouble if we weren't kept busy? How's that work?

    More importantly, what do you do instead? Don't get involved? Don't do anything and just refuse to participate? Then what does it matter whether you make an effort or not in local or state politics if it doesn't matter?

    Are you gentlemen suggesting instead that you ignore politics that you each work with your churches or social groups or charities to benefit others instead of involving yourself with politics?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2016
  5. Radagast
    • Contributing Member

    Radagast Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,148
    Location:
    Australia/OZ
    Just because you have declared the system to be corrupt and yourself too squeaky clean to deal with it, does not mean the system is through with you.

    I have a friend who plays the Sovereign Citizen card. He's not contracting with the police. The courts are Admiralty courts. All govts are corporations. Yada Yada. He still carries a drivers license, because in the end he recognizes the power of the State to mess with his life if he doesn't play the game.

    The Republic envisioned by the Founders never existed. They set a list of ideals but never managed to live up to them.
    The spirit of party. Professional politicians. Expropriation of loyalist property. Invading Canada. Indian expulsions. Civil war. Reconstruction. Involvement in foreign wars. Globe spanning Empire. Federal regulation of the minutia of day life. These were not the goals of the Declaration of Independence.

    Counter to the constant creep of govt. over-reach, the corruption and venality, certain ideas have been held on to and promoted as universal truths and rights. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Freedom of speech, movement, employment, association, education and self preservation.
    Those have been preserved because individuals have banded together and placed enough pressure on their elected representatives that it was easier for the More Important Pigs to give up on those issues than risking their positions with their snouts in the trough of money.

    The Republic is the Dejure ideal. The American Empire is the Defacto reality. The defacto reality is as good as it is because so many have held on to the ideals and promoted them even when it brought ridicule.

    At this time you have the ability to participate, to bend the course of that corrupt Empire, to hold it truer to those ideals. Those of us who are not American citizens do not have that chance and can see what you are throwing away.

    Failing to participate in the election, even at the minimal level of voting is not being pure, its showing a deep seated apathy. Posting Demotivators is just demonstrating your apathy. If you look at the people being quoted, they didn't give up and don't support your position.

    Becky Gerritson ran for Congress and stood up against the IRS using its power to shut down political opponents.
    Wendy McElroy is a feminist who was blinded in a domestic violence attack. She speaks to and against political feminists who use domestic violence as a means to further their political ends, rather than campaigning for justice against criminal individuals.
    Stalin could play that card because he controlled a society where he could commit genocide and get away with it. America is not that far gone.


    Here is Australia, three years ago we managed to elect three pro-gun independent senators. Among other things they blocked an attempt to ban importation of lever action shotguns. There are now 6 brands on the market, replacing pumps and semis in the Australian shooting community.
    The major parties of the left and right changed the senate election rules and called an early election attempting to force them out. Two were re-elected and the conservative govt. will require their votes to pass legislation. I doubt that any further gun bans will go through in the next three years.

    The idea that a pro-gun libertarian could be elected then re-elected was constantly rubbished. Positions on anything other than guns and drugs were never covered in the press. Political cartoons showed a redneck with a reefer and a gun. Soundbites always attempted to show an unhinged individual.
    But elected they were. Because people went and voted.
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Furthermore --

    The fundamental error is the belief that this is somehow about "systems" -- that there is some system, any system, which will automatically produce the right results. And that even if there were such a system there would be a way to "install" it in our world -- like replacing the exhaust system in your car or the hard-drive and processor in your laptop.

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves ..."

    We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions.

    The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities.

    We are "the system." We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire.

    The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise and to use the processes provided for in the Constitution to make wise decision and promote wise policies. A "system" can't be wise. A "system" is just a mechanism. It is up to those using the mechanism to use it wisely.

    If our side apparently lacks the savvy to operate within the existing legal and political process to better further our interests and values, what makes us think that we will be able to successfully do so in any other legal and political process.
     
  7. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56


    I see no reason to spite me. You guys can continue on, business as usual. I don't care what you do but please, you do not speak for me on this issue so you have no idea of the "work" I've put in..

    It would be "nice" if this post is allowed to stand too.

    As far as the (not so)Supreme court goes... It's been corrupted since Mayberry vs Madison, where they gave themselves more power than allowed.
    Nobody seemed to mind though.
     
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

    • In its ruling in Marbury the Supreme Court was merely exercising its explicit authority given it in the Constitution to exercise judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution. In doing so and reaching its decision in Marbury it was applying established Common Law principles -- just as courts were, and are, expected to do.

    • And as Marshall pointed out, to decide the matter in Marbury the Court had to either sustain an act of Congress or conclude that the act of Congress was contrary to the Constitution, and thus sustain the Constitution. Either the act of Congress was valid, yielding one result, or it was invalid as conflicting with the Constitution, yielding a different result.

    • In other words, the Court could not, in Marbury, decide the case without choosing either a law enacted by Congress or the Constitution.

    • And without judicial review under the Constitution of acts of Congress or other actions of public officials, what would be the remedy for such a law or action that one believed was repugnant under the Constitution? Do we have a civil war over every disagreement about the constitutionality of a law? Does each person get to decide for himself whether a law is constitutional and therefore whether to abide by it?

    Furthermore, while you disclaim the legitimacy of Marbury, you are happy enough to quote it to support your arguments.

    You wrote (without proper attribution) in post 37:
    That principle comes from Marbury v. Madison (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)):

    • 1 Cranch 137, at 177:

    • at 177 -- 178:

    • at 180:

    Of course, it's still the province of the courts, and not you, to decide if a law is repugnant to the Constitution.
     
  9. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    The "Duty" of the (not so)Supreme Court, the ONLY duty, is on whether any law meets Constitutional muster.
    Period.
    They are not authorized to "interpret" laws based on party influence or bias. As T. Jefferson so eloquently said,

    " To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

    No one is above the law. The Constitution is the law.

    be53510748cd87212bb6eb859d200490.jpg
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2016
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    I guess you've never read the Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers described the role of the federal courts in some detail. Let's look at Sections 1 and 2 of Article III in their entirety:

    And, of course, the federal courts, as does any court, decide cases and controversies withing the scope of their jurisdiction. That's what courts do.
     
  11. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Thomas Jefferson is only one of the Founding Fathers, and he does not speak for everyone who had a hand in writing the Constitution or securing its ratification.

    It's true that no one is above the law, but it appears that you have no clue what the law is, nor how it works. The law and legal system in the United States have evolved over more than 200 years and is what it is.

    And while the Constitution is law, it's not all the law there is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2016
  12. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    Some of the views expressed in this thread are deeply disturbing to me.

    By not voting, what do you accomplish? Exactly nothing. A single vote may not count for much, but in the aggregate, votes certainly do count.

    What is the alternative to the ballot box? The bullet box? Total anarchy? A failed state, on the pattern of Somalia? A tyrannical dictatorship?

    The Constitution is not a self-executing document. Nor is it a pagan idol to be placed in a shrine and worshipped. It's just a framework by which we govern ourselves, by voting and otherwise participating.

    Talk of this country being a "representative constitutional republic" (as opposed to a democracy) is just an excuse for the tyranny of the few as opposed to the "tyranny" of the many. And it's deeply unhistorical. The United States is, and has always been, a democracy expressed in the form of a republic. "Democracy" is the underlying philosophy while "republic" is the structure through which it is expressed. Apples and oranges.

    Also, equating democracy to mob rule shows a lack of understanding of what democracy really is. The ancient Greeks had a term for mob rule: "ochlocracy." This was totally distinct from "democracy," which was orderly rule by the people. The "demos" was the organized body of the people, operating under an established set of rules.

    Enough with this insurrectionism and "Sovereign Citizen" garbage! If we go down this path, we will lose all support for gun rights, and be relegated to the lunatic fringe.
     
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    55,660
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    I'd really like to understand what our members on the mikestone side of this argument do instead of what they don't. I get that you think voting is a sham because all politics is rigged and corrupt and that any participation in the government is a waste of time, I have friends that think this too, but what do you propose instead of refusing to participate in any part of the political process as participating in civil society instead?

    Being "against" isn't the same as being "for" something else and I assume you're for something instead.
     
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    hso wrote:

    Well, if you take their argument out to its logical conclusion, it goes to places we don't want to go on this site. That's why they can't spell it out.
     
  15. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Eh, I may not vote, but not out of some goofy belief it affects anything. Fact is, none of the choices satisfy my policy desires to any significant extent this go around, and my local election is unlikely to be contentious. Voting for any of them violates my conscience, and won't promote issues I care about, and will be for naught anyway. It tells me I need to be far, far more active in the primaries next go around, and participate in the party, to make sure policies I value get attention.
     
  16. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,661
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    I think the premise that voting is, in essence, condoning something is flawed.


    Voting is, in essence, 'risk management'; which is something everyone does just about every moment of everyday.


    To not vote, is bowing in acceptance of any and all risk with-out regard for yourself or others.
     
  17. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    55,660
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    I see that as doing more than voting and more of what we advocate for those interested in participating in politics and civil society.
     
  18. jcwit

    jcwit member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,011
    Location:
    Great state of Indiana
    For those who wish to not vote or refuse to vote, I'm guessing you have no concern which way the Supreme Court goes.

    I'm old, I've lived my life, Good Luck with yours.


    BTW, of course I'll vote and not for Hillary.
     
  19. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56


    Did you miss the part, in your own quote, that they have jurisdiction over Issues of Constitutionality?

    Must have missed it huh?

    37c65dda50b135d2ec0d0c7f2cfdeb36.jpg

    See, even "They" do not have the power that you speak of. It's right there in your own post...

    Issues arising concerning the Supreme Law of the Land, which "They" are also bound to follow..
     
  20. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Once again, deciding cases arising under the Constitution must at times necessarily involve deciding whether a law applies or whether that law does not apply because it is not constitutional (i. e., repugnant under the Constitution). It can't otherwise be done. And Marshall very clearly explains the conundrum in Marbury (1 Cranch 137, at 178):
     
  21. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56


    There only job is to decide whether or not a "Law" is Constitutional. period.

    Are they "Allowed" to interpret law? No.

    Fact: in 2009, justice Keagen(?) said "There is no Constitutional Right to same sex marriage."

    2015: it is NOW seen as a "Constitutional Right". Funny, I HAVE read the Constitution as well as the Bill of RIGHTS (not needs), and I find marriage nowhere in the entire document... Strange!

    Fact: Obama Care, aka the Affordable Healthcare Act, is UnConstitutional. Period.

    The (not so)Supreme Court altered wording and removed it from the Tax Law and put it under the "Commerce Clause". strange again, no?

    See, only the House has the authority to write laws, not the Supreme Court... Sorry.
    It should have been rejected, sent back to the House for a re-write at worst..

    This ENTIRE GOVERNMENT has ZERO authority to force me to buy ANYTHING. Period
     
  22. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage' | The Weekly Standard

    http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/j...itutional-right-same-sex-marriage_981272.html

    Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'

    1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

    a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

    Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

    Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

    Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
     
  23. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Just so you know I'm not the only one fed up with this crap.....
    http://wearechange.org/wa-gun-owners-stage-largest-felony-civil-disobedience-rally-americas-history/
    SOURCE: DCBEACON.COM

    Read More

    http://www.truthandaction.org/large...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2016
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,820
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    You are clearly ignorant about the law and the courts. You have no idea how law works. You have no idea how courts work.

    The bottom line is that the exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases necessarily involves interpreting the law (and the Constitution). Cases can not be decides in any other way, and courts can not function in any other way. And it has been thus since long before the United States existed.

    Judicial power means:
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2016
  25. mikestone967

    mikestone967 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    "Retired Lawyer"..... That explains it.

    And don't you dare insult my integrity by calling me IGNORANT.

    What do you know of me?

    Nothing. Do you know my level of education?
    My schooling and chosen career path?
    My morals, my thoughts, my feelings?

    Of course you don't so don't preach to me about ignorance.. I don't require nor do I appreciate your assessment based on almost zero facts of "who",or "what" I am...
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice