And the System just keeps on working!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 7 of 10
Slick,
Quote:But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?
Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law
I am not trying to run the government to my individual wishes. I am not trying to erase debate between citizens. What don't YOU get about that?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,Quote:But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?
Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law
Hmmmm.... maybe I missed something, as I haven't had time to throroughly scan this thread, but I thought Geezer had merely said that its a dead issue 'as far as the law is concerned.' That sounds about right. Is he really trying tell us all to shut up? Does it even matter?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick, But people have no right to discuss with each other? To try and convince other people? To debate each other? So that when YOU say the issue is settled in law, that's the end of any discussion?
Copy and paste is my friend.
Quote:
"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
Why do I get the feeling you purposefully take sections of my quotes out of context just so you don't have to suffer the indignity of finding that you agree with what I'm saying?
Quote:
I am not trying to run the government to my individual wishes. I am not trying to erase debate between citizens. What don't YOU get about that?
I get it. See my quote above. Note especially the underlined part.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to concatenate Geezer statements, possibly slightly out of order.
Quote:I don't know how you read that, but I read that as a big shut up. "If it's not in the courts it's a dead issue" Now I don't know about you, but I don't go around talking about dead issues... except maybe Geezer since he's my favorite dead issue... and I certainly don' try to do anything about them. What I'm hearing is... Don't talk about possible miscarriages of justice, don't try to make sure that the next elections are above reproach, don't engage in "philosophical exercises".
And the System just keeps on working!
If someone can get an indictment, prove treason, and get a conviction - the system will have worked one more time, just like it's supposed to. On the other hand, if no one, despite their best efforts, can gather enough evidence to get the process rolling then the system will also have worked.
If we get a conviction, it works! If we don't get a conviction, it works!- SignyM
If someone can prove his actions were criminal, instead of just in a grey area of law, fine and good.
In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?
Assuming that they control the committees- which they don't- SignyM
As far as the law is concerned, Bush is the President. As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. In a bit over two years, it'll be a moot point anyway, because Bush will have served his second term and can't be re-elected. If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.
You can argue that Bush didn't win the election all you want, but unless someone takes legal action, it's just a philosophical excercise. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud.... If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't know how you read that, but I read that as a big shut up.
I read that left to right like most people do.
Did not get 'a big shut up' out of it though. Must be our differing viewpoints.
Quote:
Now I don't know about you, but I don't go around talking about dead issues...
Would you consider slavery a dead issue?
Quote:
What I'm hearing is... Don't talk about possible miscarriages of justice, don't try to make sure that the next elections are above reproach, don't engage in "philosophical exercises".
Philosophise away to your hearts content. But real change must come about through the system, slow and flawed though it may be. At least that's what I got out of Geezers posts.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I guess my point is that real change preceeds the system and often occurs despite the system. That it occurs when some tipping point is reached and "enough" people change their minds... like the American Revolution, or the teachings of Jesus, or capitalism... all new philosophies that took hold even tho the system was screaming and kicking all the way.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW- I don't consider slavery a dead issue. The forces that make slavery an attractive economic option are still present. So slavery is a worldwide fact of life and even (still) occurs in the USA.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- I don't consider slavery a dead issue. The forces that make slavery an attractive economic option are still present. So slavery is a worldwide fact of life and even (still) occurs in the USA.
And I'd like to add that the particular brand of racism that grew up around the slave trade, was created in part to aid in the implementation of the slave trade, continues to be part of our nation. Just because slavery was outlawed does not mean that the mindset that allowed people to condone the owning of human beings disappeared.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see SignyM beat me to it, but I have some lengthy quotes, not "snippets out of context":
In a bi-partisan system, why would one party not use such evidence to support and advance their ideology by damaging the standing of the other party? Just as an example, if the Democrats have evidence that Bush, Cheney, et.al. broke the laws, wouldn't it be to their advantage to move for prosecution or impeachment?
Not quite. You allege fraud. If it ain't proven in court, it ain't fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. If the Democrats thought they could prove fraud, they should have tried. They didn't. Dead issue.
Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment.
As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.
"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again.
The 13th Amendment is now settled law, unless someone manages to introduce a Constitutional Amendment allowing slavery.
The 18th Amendment was settled law, until the proposal of what ended up as the 21st amendment, which led to its repeal.
Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if .... everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother. Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States. If the people can convince someone to take that action, that's fine.
Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.
What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I get out of this is there is simply no room for US in the process. It's up to the courts, the parties, the legislators and "them". Anything else is a dead issue.
Please explain to me how US, the people, can get laws and policies changed without going throught the legislative process; how we can get justice without going through the courts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME