Text 27412, 208 rader
Skriven 2007-02-23 06:27:32 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 27409 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
Ed Hulett -> John Hull wrote:
 EH> John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>> Ed Hulett -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 EH>>> 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
 EH> 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?

 EH>>> I was expecting an answer, but as you pointed out here, none was
 EH>>> 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
 EH> earlier
 VH>>>> provisions that it may contradict?"

 EH>>> 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
 EH> 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
 EH>>> get on
 VH>>>> the ballot . . . "

 EH>>> It stops professional politicians from running just to stay in
 JH>> 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.

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

 EH>>> 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
 EH> the
 VH>>>> other.

 EH>>> 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.

 EH>>> 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
 EH>>> or the
 VH>>>> other -- going right back to Edbridge Gerry and the Gerrymander.

 EH>>> There has only been one Republican representing the 6th district
 EH> since
 EH>>> 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
 EH> years
 VH>>>> has prevented it.

 EH>>> 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
 EH>>> hands of
 VH>>>> the State Legislature.

 EH>>> Right. The changes reflect population movement. Not some desire to
 JH>> favor
 EH>>> 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
 EH> them.

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

 EH>>> 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?

 EH>>> 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.

 EH>>> That's concerning term limits.

 EH>>> Ed



 JH>> Gerrymandering has been, and still is, a major problem in Illinois.
 JH>> Apparently from what you say, it is less so in Washington.  Good for
 JH>> you.

 EH> The only gerrymandering I've witnessed was when they tried to get my
 EH> State Reps out of office. They drew me into a legislative district where
 EH> there were no Republicans on the ballot. None. I have since moved back
 EH> into the my original legislative district and my one of my former reps
 EH> is now my State Senator and the other is still one of my reps.

 JH>> But what is the problem with following the Constitution.  The
 JH>> ultimate decision is the ballot box, so if the guy running lives
 EH> outside
 JH>> a district and doesn't have the confidence of voters, he'll lose the
 JH>> race.  Personally, I don't care if he lives in the district or not
 EH> if he
 JH>> can demonstrate a knowledge of the local issues.  Residency in this
 EH> case
 JH>> seems to me to be another roadblock that keeps good men from getting
 JH>> involved, and makes it easier for incumbents to retain power.

 EH> No, it's not a roadblock keeping "good men" from getting involved. Good
 EH> (wo)men would want to live among and know his neighbors and know their
 EH> concerns before wanting to be their representative in DC. Only a
 EH> professional politician would feel they could represent people they have
 EH> no connection with.

 EH> Ed


You may be right on an emotional level, but your response has nothing to do
with the law, which is what is in the Constitution.  States do NOT have the
authority to supercede constitutional law.  I understand that they have and
have gotten away with it in many cases, but that doesn't make it right.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)