Text 27333, 123 rader
Skriven 2007-02-18 14:32:00 av VERN HUMPHREY
     Kommentar till en text av ED HULETT
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
EH> EH>>>> So, if such an amendment happened to become part of the
EH> VH> Constitution,
EH> VH>>> it wou
EH> EH>>>> be a violation of itself?

EH> VH>>> Don't be silly, Ed!

EH> EH>> I'm not being silly, Vern.

EH> VH> Then please explain how an amendment can violate itself!

EH>I didn't claim it could. Notice the question mark above.

Why did you ASK the question?????

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

EH> EH>> Whoa!

EH> EH>> Not all amendments over-ride earlier porvisions.

EH> VH> Come on, Ed!  No one said ALL amendments over-ride earlier provisions.

EH>Re-read your statement above.

How do you get "An amendment to the Constitution over-rides any earlier
provisions that it may contradict." To mean "ALL amendments over-ride
earlier provisions?"

EH> VH> If it won't pass, it won't pass.  And therefore we ought not to act as
EH> VH> if it HAD passed.

EH>My point is that an amendment isn't needed if the state law is worded proper

So how DO you word a state law to get around a Supreme Court ruling that
the states may not interpose any obstacle to getting on the Federal
ballot that is not in the Constitution?

EH> VH> Because it works in favor of the majority party, of course.  They
EH> VH> violate the Constitution for their benefit and WE let them get away wit
EH> VH> it.

EH>Say what? Requiring someone to live in the district they represent favors th
EH>majority party exactly how?

What what happens after the census of 2010.  In some states, the
majority party in the State legislature will re-district to put opposite
party incumbents in the same district -- thus re-districting one out of
office.

EH> VH> The Census deems nothing.  The State legislatures re-draw the districts
EH> VH> every ten years.

EH>Not the congressional districts. State legislative districts get redrawn all
EH>the time.

The state legislatures re-draw congressional districts after every
census -- they are required to by both the Constitution and federal law.

EH> VH> You see, even if the state doesn't pick up or lose a representative, th
EH> VH> population shifts -- one part of the state may gain, another lose.  So
EH> VH> the districts that were approximately equal in population decade ago ar
EH> VH> no longer equal.

EH>We are talking very minor changes.

It's minor when districts are re-drawn so that two serving congressmen
are suddenly in the same districts?

It's minor when a district is created by drawing the boundaries down
both sides of the interstate to connect two widely-separated area?

EH> VH> Every state redistricts every ten years.

EH>The 6th district in which I live has been the same for a very long time.

Which state?  Washington?  Check and see what Census blocks made up that
district in 1999. :-)

EH> VH> No, because of crooked politicians.

EH>Uh huh... it always comes down to the claim of crooked politicians.

That's because a lot of our problems are REALLY due to crooked
politicians!

EH> VH> Which is damn close to saying, "The Constitution says whatever those in
EH> VH> power WANT it to say."

EH>What next? You going to be like Hull and call me a liberal?

Nope.  I'm going to say, "stick with the Constitution, even if you don't
like parts of it."

EH> EH>> Maybe requiring someone to live in their district isn't such an obstac

EH> VH> Is it in the Constitution?  Which Article, section and clause?

EH>I'm saying it doesn't have to be in the Constitution. There are a lot of thi
EH>the US Constitution leaves to the states and the people. If it covered
EH>everything, it would not only be hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages long, i
EH>would be over-reaching.

The Supreme Court, in Arkansas vs US Term Limits ruled that it DOES
have to be in the Constitution.

EH> VH> What?  And cut off all that federal money flowing in to be spent as the
EH> VH> deem good?

EH>Vern, you're all over the page on this. First, you say if an amendment can't
EH>passed it isn't worth considering. Now, you say it can't pass because of
EH>political graft.

You see a conflict there, do you? :-)

I say if we cannot pass an amendment, we ought to follow the Constition
as written.  AND I say there are many violations of the Constitution
because of graft and corruption.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)