And the System just keeps on working!

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 8 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:54 PM

I think one of the geniuses of the American system is that is allows peaceful change. And the freedoms that are granted to us - speech and assembly- promote change by allowing us to philosophize together. (freedoms that corporate media and the Administration are persistently carving away) But the impetus for change doesn't come from the system. It comes when a new paradigm takes hold. How that manifests itself can't always be predicted. Sometimes it's in the form of changes of buying habits, direct activism, cooperation (free software) or even simple social pressure. (It's impossible for a woman to say she's had an abortion even if it's perfectly legal.)

If I want to change society, I would first aim to change opinion, and then people should aim to change the law. But the courts and the law aren't the only way to effect change- look at Bush, the right wing, and the corporations. They KNOW that their "feed the rich" right-wing Xtian agenda doesn't have majority support (by opnion poll) and so they've explored every loophole and ferreted out every weakness... and broken more than a few laws... to impose their opinion on everyone else.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If I want to change society, I would first aim to change opinion, and then people should aim to change the law.

Please explain to me how this statement differs from:

"The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:30 PM

I got a couple steaks to throw on this barbie, ok?

Firstoff, the definition of "Treason" is expressly spelled out in the Constitution itself, just to prevent it from being arbitrarily thrown around.

Article III, Section 3 - Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Much as I despise the shrub, the term Treason does not, so far, apply to his actions, negligence and incompetence, those I'll give you, surely - but the T word is expressly and specifically defined in the USC for a very good reason.

Now, Clintons trial was fairly partisan, that I also give you, and between us folk I could really care less who the Pres is humping, as long as he does his job - HOWEVER....

The president can be impeached and removed from office for ANY crime, specifically including a misdemeanor, or petty crime - I jest not.

Article II - Section 4 - The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

And what that means, is that when *convicted* of some crap, they're out, Congress, Cabinet, Veep, Prez - the intention of the law is that upon conviction, you're gone.

The system does *NOT* work, when you ignore the rules, and both sides have, for a long time.

The system only works when the rules are explicitly followed, which, in truth, and historically, they have NEVER been - Adams and Lincoln, for example, pissed all over freedom of the press during their tenure in office - the enforcement of those rules falls to congress, and if congress should fail - it falls to US, and I do not mean standing around holding signs either.
Thus the purpose of Amendment #2.

But it is in mankinds nature to bear those evils that can be borne, rather than stand up and risk their comfortable existences to do something about it - that was true even in Shakespeares day (as Hamlet expounds quite a bit on the topic) and thus, they sit back and suffer and grumble.

Believe you me, if a congressional rep or two got tarred and feathered by an angry mob of their constituents, it'd send an awful clear message, but things are so far gone they'd probably bomb the neighborhood in retaliation - realistically, the best thing one can do is just take cover and let the inevitable implosion occur, and pick up the pieces when it does, and THEN build wisely.

In order for the system to work, "we the people" have to be a *threat* to the leadership, that must be appeased, and we're not.

"People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people." - V (As portrayed by Hugo Weaving).

-Frem

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:30 PM

Deadlock whahuh?
I need that in captain dummy talk...

RUE

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:39 PM

Slick,
Please explain to me why "dead issues" are beyond discussion.

GEEZER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Please explain to me why "dead issues" are beyond discussion.

They're not. You can discuss, say, the 2004 election all you want. You can convince other people that it was fraudulent. You can hold rallies and marches. You can put up billboards. You can post in chatrooms. You can build a massive consensus that the election was fixed.

For all this to actually accomplish anything substantive (i.e. getting the election overturned) you have to apply this massive consensus to pressure either the legislature or the courts to re-open the issue of the 2004 election. Until that point, Bush is still legally President, and the 2004 election is a legal dead issue.

I think I said something similar earlier. Yes, here it is.

"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."

Now, after you have built the massive consensus noted above, you might instead apply it to move the legislature to create a voting system less open to possible fraud. That might be more worthwhile in the long run, and more doable than trying to get Bush kicked out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:41 PM

Slick,

Why do you persist in taking small snippets out of context? I think you said something dissimilar earlier. Yes, here it is.

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

Why do you persist in taking small snippets out of context? I think you said something dissimilar earlier. Yes, here it is.

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.

Please provide specifics as to how you disagree with these statements. Maybe I'm just not getting your point. Maybe you're not getting my point. Maybe you're just being an ass. Clarify my confusion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:11 PM

FREM- Outing a CIA officer (one who was working on WMD and Iran) in time of war is treason. Novak has said in writing that Rove confirmed Plame's identity. What Rove SHOULD have said was "I can't discuss it". There was at least one other source- known to both Novak and Fitzgerald- who was the initial leak.

For whatever reason, this crime (and it is a crime) is not being prosecuted despite publically acknowledged evidence.

IGNORING Osama bin Laden- pulling troops from Afghanistan to focus on Iraq, and making side deals with Pakistan's Pervez Musharef is also giving aid and comfort to the enemy (bin Laden)

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

HIPPIEBROWNCOAT

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:34 PM

Oooh, i'm going to make some enemies here.

I am a hippie. I basically believe in peace, food, justice, and respect for all living things. But i do make an exception for terrorist-folk. And i believe that we should not be held to Geneva Conventions regarding these people. This is a war, true, but they are not part of a recognized country. They are part of a faction (or factions) of militants whose goal is to reign terror, death, destruction, fear, and pain on our country and others. They took this path of their own free will. I don't want to think about what they are very likely doing to our prisioners. They are prepared to die. I am not down with killing prisioners of this war-type-thing, but i strongly believe that if smacking some of them around could save hundreds or thousands of civillian lives, well, here, i'll go find a club right now. I understand that it would be very noble of us "not to sink to that level," but sometimes you've got to play dirty. Just how noble would it be to let innocent folk die in masses just to uphold our good name? (which in case anyone hasn't noticed, isn't terribly good anyways.)

I hate Bush and his administration of cronies as much as the next person with two brain cells rubbing together. I do believe that he got us into this mess, or at the very least let it get so bad. Whatever. I know that our country is in a big damn mess with no purty way out. So i don't see what's so important about sparing some hateful, dangerous people a few bruises in the name of saving lives.

Oh, i am a tweaked one, yes i am...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE