Text 27396, 168 rader
Skriven 2007-02-21 21:04:20 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>>>>> 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?????

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

 VH> What point was "clarified" by asking if an amendment could violate
 VH> itself?

I was expecting an answer, but as you pointed out here, none was forthcoming.

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

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

 VH> Clearer than "An amendment to the Constitution over-rides any earlier
 VH> provisions that it may contradict?"

Yes.

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

 EH>> Maybe requiring the person to reside in the district he/she/it
 VH> represents is
 EH>> an obstacle like you claim.

 VH> How is it not an obstacle?  On the face of it, it says "You can't get on
 VH> the ballot . . . "

It stops professional politicians from running just to stay in Congress.

 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
 VH> opposit
 VH>>> party incumbents in the same district -- thus re-districting one
 VH> out of
 VH>>> office.

 EH>> That must be one of those east coast things.

 VH> Dead wrong -- get maps of your Congressional district in 1979, '89,
 VH> and '99 and see the differences.

The 6th District is a large district encompassing Klallum, Jefferson, Grays
Harbor, Mason and parts of Kitsap and Pierce counties. The 7th district is
Seattle.

There has been little change in the 6th district.

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

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

 VH> Some districts have linked two widely separated areas together by
 VH> running the boundaries up one shoulder of the interstate and down the
 VH> other.

That's nice. Not so with any of Washington's congressional districts.

 VH> Does the word "Gerrymander" mean anything to you?  It refers to
 VH> designing districts so they favor one side in an election.

I believe I brought up the subject of gerrymandering already.

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

 EH>> It depends on how the lines are drawn.

 VH> Bingo!  And districts are often drawn to blatantly favor one side or the
 VH> other -- going right back to Edbridge Gerry and the Gerrymander.

There has only been one Republican representing the 6th district since it was
originally drawn.

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

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

 VH> And how do you propose to do that?  No law to date, in over 200 years
 VH> has prevented it.

We need honest politicians. I know, I know that's an oxymoron.

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

 EH>> Minor changes.

 VH> But changes,  nevertheless.  And the degree of change is in the hands of
 VH> the State Legislature.

Right. The changes reflect population movement. Not some desire to favor one
party over another.

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

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

 VH> You'd think that -- if you didn't understand the power the crooked
 VH> politicians have to thwart the people.

Oh yeah, it's a conspiracy...

 VH>>> Nope.  I'm going to say, "stick with the Constitution, even if
 VH> you don'
 VH>>> like parts of it."

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

 VH> Then why support states putting obstacles to getting on the federal
 VH> ballot that are NOT in the Constitution?

I oppose professional politicians who are just interested in power.

 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
 VH> a lot

 VH> The Supreme Court has clearly said no state can put an obstacle to
 VH> getting on the Federal Ballot that is not in the Constitution.

That's concerning term limits.

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)

Registered Linux User# 416016
Registered 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)