it will be dismissed again On Dec 5, 5:03 am, Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All legitimate legal questions that need to be answered and now the courts > will have to resolve the issue. > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Winning the Direct Attack on Democracy & Obama > >http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&;... > > Democracy is very popular. Thus, those unhappy with the results of > > democracy have nearly always been forced to undermine it INdirectly > > -- > > because a direct attack (say, in favor of dictatorship) could not > > credibly be mounted. > > > Nevertheless, today there's an unprecedented direct attack on > > democracy, seeking to overrule the election of Obama by the people of > > the United States -- either in the Courts, or in Congress at the > > Electoral College. > > > These attacks presently take the form of three petitions circulating > > in the US Supreme Court right now, at least two of which are set to > > be > > decided in a secret conference of the full court on Friday December > > 5. > > Importantly, because these are applications for stay (requires 5 > > Justices), they also require that the Justices believe the petitioner > > is likely to prevail on the merits. As a result, on the off chance > > that a motion is granted, the case IS OVER BEFORE THE PUBLIC EVEN > > HEARS ABOUT IT. This is precisely what happened with the stay order > > in > > Bush v. Gore that terminated the recount in Florida -- the rest was > > reported by lawyers involved as really feeling like it was just going > > through the motions. > > > Because these cases presently at the level of the US Supreme Court > > seek to overrule the will of the American people they are entirely > > unlike recounts or election contests. Real recounts or election > > contests at bottom challenge the election only by saying (in more > > words than this) "I don't think the certified result is the true will > > of the people." That's not what these suits do. > > > These three suits, with more states circulating up the appellate > > ladder, could care less about the will of the American people: they > > are direct attacks on democracy and the will of the people, seeking > > to > > stop the election they know they lost, based on an issue raised in > > the > > primary and in the general that got little or no traction outside > > rightwing blogs. > > > THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE FLOATED AROUND FOR AT LEAST A YEAR IS VERY > > IMPORTANT. IT MEANS IT WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE AMERICAN > > PEOPLE. > > > THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT EXTREMELY HIGH PROFILE LIKE ACORN IS > > IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE. IF THIS WERE NOT TRUE THEN EVERY EXTREMELY > > MINOR OR FRIVOLOUS CAMPAIGN ISSUE COULD BE RAISED POST-ELECTION AS A > > CHALLENGE. BUT THE USUAL RULE OF ELECTION LAW IS THAT IT IS A SERIOUS > > EVIL TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO SIT ON A CLAIM, SEE > > WHAT THE ELECTION RESULTS ARE, AND THEN SUE. BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED > > HERE. > > > We need to focus on THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: UNDER WHAT > > CIRCUMSTANCES > > CAN ANYBODY IN THIS WORLD OVERRULE THE UNCONTESTED WILL OF THE > > AMERICAN PEOPLE? > > > The answer to this question exposes those who hate or don't trust > > democracy. > > > The right wing sees these suits as no-lose propositions. Even if they > > win nothing, their full page ad in yesterday's Chicago tribune and > > related publicity at minimum seeks to undermine and split the Obama > > supermajority, peeling away 1% or more by painting Obama as a liar, a > > foreigner, etc. > > > The Donofrio petition for stay claims that Obama, McCain and the > > Socialist Candidate for president are all unqualified under the > > "natural born" clause. The Socialist candidate was born in Nicaragua, > > and was allowed on some ballots and not allowed on others. This will > > seem to the Supreme Court to represent an Equal Protection issue of > > differential enforcement/investigation. > > > IN truth, I'm more concerned about these cases LOSING, believe it or > > not. A likely ruling by the Supreme Court, if one is made, would > > defer > > to the Congressional electoral college process under the Political > > Question doctrine -- which many law reviews have since opined should > > have resulted in Bush v. Gore never having been heard by the US > > Supreme Court at all. The Court could punt the issue to the Congress, > > who would then, yes, in effect hold ANOTHER ELECTION and some kind of > > hearing about the issue, since no voter has been deemed to have > > standing in several pre-election cases. SURELY somebody must have > > standing to enforce the constitution, --- and we will "discover" that > > the Congress "does" at the level of the Electoral college. But if > > through delays, or stays, or Supreme Court ruling the Congress for > > any > > reason is allowed to second-guess the election, then we have a new > > election in yet another guise. > > > OK, so maybe you think "OBAMA WINS" in the Democratic congress. This > > is beside the point. While winning is not guaranteed, what will have > > happened at this point is that in your/our relief at Obama dodging a > > Supreme Court bullet, we accept what is, long term, a worse situation > > where the Congress can second guess the people's election, and pick > > their own president, and there's no likely appeal because of the > > POLITICAL QUESTION doctrine. This would be a defeat for democracy > > even > > if it ended up as a win for Obama or at least some other Democrat, in > > the worst case scenario. > > > So again I urge, the question is: Under what circumstances can any > > court or Congress overrule the clear will of the American people? > > > None. > > > This country is owned by We the People. We created the Constitution > > to > > limit and shape the powers of government. We can, in point of fact, > > knowingly elect a felon to the House or Senate and prior US Supreme > > Court precedents like Powell v. McCormack uphold the inability of the > > House or Senate to remove the people's choice for any reason other > > than the qualifications clauses in the Constitution, which are > > minimal. > > -- > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
