Text 27347, 191 rader
Skriven 2007-02-19 17:48:27 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:
 EH>>>>>> So, if such an amendment happened to become part of the
 VH>>> Constitution,
 VH>>>>> it wou
 EH>>>>>> be a violation of itself?

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

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

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

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

 VH> Why did you ASK the question?????

To get you to clarify a point you were making. Of course, you edited that
comment out and focused on my question.

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

 EH>>>> Whoa!

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

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

 EH>> Re-read your statement above.

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

You could have said "An amendment... will over-ride..." That would have made
your point clearer.

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

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

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

Maybe requiring the person to reside in the district he/she/it represents isn't
an obstacle like you claim.

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

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

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

That must be one of those east coast things.

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

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

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

Do you think congressional districts are that small that the representative
lives just inside the boundry? -- that they could easily move the line to the
other side of their residence?

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

 EH>> We are talking very minor changes.

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

It depends on how the lines are drawn.

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

That's called gerrymandering. What is needed in that case are
anti-gerrymandering laws.

 VH>>> Every state redistricts every ten years.

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

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

Minor changes.

 VH>>> No, because of crooked politicians.

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

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

You'd think people would elect more honest people to represent them.

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

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

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

I never said I didn't like parts of the Constitution.

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

 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
 VH> 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
 VH> long, i
 EH>> would be over-reaching.

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

That's term limits.

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

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

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

Yep.

 VH> I say if we cannot pass an amendment, we ought to follow the Constition
 VH> as written.  AND I say there are many violations of the Constitution
 VH> because of graft and corruption.

And there's the rub...

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)