Text 27238, 157 rader
Skriven 2007-02-15 20:13:29 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
VERN HUMPHREY -> ED HULETT wrote:
 VH>>> Of course they are!  Which is why EVERY violation of the
 VH> Constitution
 VH>>> should be opposed.

 EH>> So, if such an amendment happened to become part of the Constitution,
 VH> it wou
 EH>> be a violation of itself?

 VH> Don't be silly, Ed!

I'm not being silly, Vern.

 VH> An amendment to the Constitution over-rides any earlier provisions that
 VH> it may contradict.  For example, the 18th Amendment, authorizing a law
 VH> to prohoibit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages was
 VH> rendered null and void by the 21st Amendment.

Whoa!

Not all amendments over-ride earlier porvisions. The first 10 merely flesh out
limits on federal government and specific powers and freedoms reserved for the
states and the people.

The 18th Amendment was a failed experiment in trying to use the amendment
process to limit individual freedom. The 21st Amendment rectified that error.
Congress should have learned from this folly, but they haven't.

 VH>>> "I don't want" isn't justification for violating the Constitution.

 EH>> How is requiring representatives to live in the district they
 VH> represent a
 EH>> violation of the Constitution? There is no language in the
 VH> Constitution that
 EH>> prevents a state from making that a requirement.

 VH> The courts, in "Arkansas vs US Term Limits" ruled that states do not
 VH> have that power.  The qualifications for federal office are set by the
 VH> Constitution, alone.

 VH>>> If we want to restrict representatives to living in the
 VH> districts they
 VH>>> represent, amend the Constitution.

 EH>> And just how do you propose that take place?

 VH> Like this
 VH> *********************************************************
 VH>                            Article. V.
 VH> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
 VH> necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
 VH> Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
 VH> shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
 VH> shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
 VH> Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
 VH> several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
 VH> or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
 VH> Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
 VH> thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
 VH> and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
 VH> no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
 VH> in the Senate.
 VH> ************************************************************

 VH> Now if your position is "well it would never pass" then what is your
 VH> justification of enforcing a provision that cannot pass!?!?

It wouldn't pass in Congress -- it probably wouldn't even make it out of
committee. That isn't to say it wouldn't pass if Congress was honest enough to
start the process.

 VH>>> Of course it is --  and so is requiring signatures on a
 VH> petition, or
 VH>>> membership in a "recognized party."

 EH>> So, the state of Washington is violating the US Constitution for
 VH> requiring
 EH>> representatives live in the districts they represent?

 VH> And every state that has such a provision.

Then, why has Washington state not been forced to stop.

 VH> The reason for requiring candidates to live in the district is so if a
 VH> sitting representative is of the minority party, the state representives
 VH> can "district him out" of office after the census.  They simply
 VH> re-district the state so as to put two sitting representatives of the
 VH> other party in the same district, forcing one out of office.

They did that with my state representatives. Then, they threatened to fine them
for putting their campaign signs "outside" their district. Funny thing, though,
when they registered to run, they were given an old district map. One of those
reps is now my state Senator.

The only way to redraw US Congressional districts is if the census deems  it
necessary to add a district.

 EH>> The state has had that requirement for decades and with the letigious
 VH> nature
 EH>> our politicians you'd think someone would have challenged it in
 VH> federal cour
 EH>> by now.

 VH> You'd think gun control would have been stricken down, now too, or the
 VH> Campaign Reform Act.

So, you're saying that it's still law in this state because of lazy
politicians?

 VH>>> Okay.  So we live with it.  What we DON'T do is pretend black is
 VH> white,
 VH>>> up is down, and so on to twist the Constitution to say what it
 VH> clearely
 VH>>> doesn't say.

 EH>> No one is pretending anything here, Vern.

 VH> Then why say that the Constitution allows states to put added obstacles
 VH> in the way to the Federal ballot, when the Supreme court has said
 VH> otherwise?

Maybe requiring someone to live in their district isn't such an obstacle.

 VH>>> Which by the way is another point.  The "Home Rule" bill for
 VH> D.C. is
 VH>>> also unconstitutional.  Congress is given the power to legislate
 VH> "in al
 VH>>> cases whatsoever" for D.C.

 EH>> You'd think someone in the DC city council would have challenged it
 VH> by now.

 VH> And get their JOBS declared unconstitutional!?!?

Okay, then some concerned citizens?

Regardless, DC was never meant to be more than the seat of federal government.
There was no plan on it becoming such a large city.

Ed

-- 
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from
foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give
just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing
and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite
hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are
pretended as well as just causes of war."

-- John Jay (Federalist No. 4)


Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)