Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The Constitution remains intact.

I have a friend who has told me that GWB is not 'her' president.
As I explained, the Constitution provides that every four years
he newly elected Congress meets in joint session and votes to
accept or reject the electoral votes sent to that Congress from
the each state from the preceding Presidential Election. If one
Candidate eligible to thePresidency recieve more than half of
the total of the electoral votes accepted by the Congress then
that candidate is the President Elect and on inaguration day he
becomes my President. In Early January of 2001 the newly elected
Congress met in joint session and accepted enough electoral votes
to make George W Bush the president elect. Thus, on inaguration
day, he became my President.

Neither the (7 - 2) decision by the USSC, that Florida was in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment,
nor the concurrent decision (5 - 4) enjoining Florida from
remedying that violation had any affect at all on the competency
of the Congress to accept or reject Florida's electoral votes.

The Consitution remained intact.

Since that time Geroge W Bush and his administartion have seized
thousands of persons within the borders of the United States
and, in violation of the Constitution, held them incomunicado
from their families and legal counsel. Here in the United
States of America, the next to final arbiter of what is or is
not permitted or authorized by the Constitution is the United
States Supreme Court, which recently held in a 6 - 3 decision,
that the above mentioned action is forbidden by the Constitution
and ordered the administration to obey the Constitution and
give all persons held in the custody of the United States,
both within the borders of the United States and abroad, access
to counsel and to the courts.

It remains to be seen if George W Bush and his administration
will obey the orders of the United States Supreme Court. Other
presidents in the past have defied the Court, relying on the
final arbiter in all political actions, power. But if George
W Bush and his administration defy the COurt it will be the most
flagrant such violation of the rule of law in the United States
in over 150 years.

Even if George W Bush or his administration does defy the court,
the Constitution itself will have remained intact. As Andrew
Jackson observed, teh USSC has no mechanism for directly enforcing
its orders. If the Court is defied by this administation it will
be incumbant on Americans to enforce the order of the Court.

George W Bush and his administration have proposed, in flagrant
violation of the Constitution, to create ad hoc courts for the
purpose of trying non-citizens outside of the borders of the
United States. It seems unlikely that the administartion has
sufficient time remaining to it to carry out that plan so the
issue most likely will never come befor the USSC.

And the Constitution will remain intact.


How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...

How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.


What lesser laws?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.


What lesser laws?

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.


I was giving the benefit of the doubt. There's no similarity between
someone stealing a car and Congress or the President or the USSC acting
contrary to the Constitution.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

State and Federal criminal laws, among others.

It wasn't a trick question, I'm not clear on what you didn't
understand.


I was giving the benefit of the doubt. There's no similarity between
someone stealing a car and Congress or the President or the USSC acting
contrary to the Constitution.

IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
are typically hot air and sour grapes.

As to the Congress or the President, the USSC has just recently
stepped up to the plate and put them both in their places IRT
unconstituional law and unconstitutional executive action.

Even when ruings by the USSC are successfully defied, the
Constitution itself remains intact. The Constitution is
our contract with our government, the USSC is the arbiter
of that conract and when that arbiter sides with us it
is our job to collect.

Were essential elements of the Constitutino to be repealed, for
example to give the President the power to suspend habeas corpus,
levy taxes, or to establish courts martial then the Constitution
would no longer be intact. Until then, if our government
defies the Constitution successfully we can only blame our lack
wisdom and resolve as citizens for our failure to force our
government to comply with our Constitution.

Yet the Constituion itself will remain intact, patiently awaiting
enforcement by a people of higher character.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
are typically hot air and sour grapes.

[....]

Even when ruings by the USSC are successfully defied, the
Constitution itself remains intact. The Constitution is
our contract with our government, the USSC is the arbiter
of that conract and when that arbiter sides with us it
is our job to collect.

[....]

Yet the Constituion itself will remain intact, patiently awaiting
enforcement by a people of higher character.


WELL SAID, FRED!

And, yes, that praise is appropriately shouted.

Thankfully there are a few here like you and Rasimus who know how to
state the case (not to mention also being able to see through the fog of
war, politics, & just plain BS in the first place).


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

IMHO, accusations that the USSC acts contrary to the Constituion
are typically hot air and sour grapes.


Then you are either unfamiliar with USSC rulings, the Constitution, or both.