all the dark one needs to do is provide the real birth certificate which he has fought tooth and nail not to od. and anytime you uphold the constitution, you are not attacking democracy, you are upholding democracy. only in the warped mind of a lib would they consider following the constitution as an attack on democracy.
On Dec 5, 5:11 am, Liberal mike 532 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
