CDR: RE: A very brief politcal rant
Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters should get. There is no question what the voter wants. They knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife. The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw this out would require finding a serious problem. Technicality is probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate. Ern -----Original Message----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Jim Burnes [mailto:jburnes@savvis.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <973697805.3a09730d4e448@webmail.cotse.com>, on 11/08/00
at 09:36 AM, brflgnk@cotse.com said:
If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator, I think that's exactly what they should get. Leave the seat empty for two years.
Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office. If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office. The governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if the current office holder dies. Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled. The governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office must be held before it can be filled. The correct solution would be to hold a special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting into office. What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds (after debates etc). Here is a question? Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the ballot and replace him with someone else when he won? jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000, you wrote:
Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters should get. There is no question what the voter wants. They knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife. The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw this out would require finding a serious problem. Technicality is probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate.
Let me re-state what you have just said. The 'people' should get what the 'people' want irregardless of the law. Unfortunately what the people want is unclear here. If the people wanted the dead governors wife for senate they should have put her on the ballot. Playing the bait and switch game distorts the election outcome. What the people are getting is what the governor wants. Welcome to the people's paradise of Misery. If the people really want her, a special election should clear that up very quickly. It would be above board and not more Jefferson City scamming and corruption. I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis politics and its not pretty. This probably had much to do with his election. jim
At 2:05 PM -0500 on 11/9/00, Jim Burnes wrote:
I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis politics and its not pretty.
Agreed. I don't know if it still is, but, say, 23 years ago, St. Louis was
a great place to be *from*.
:-).
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
At 4:39 PM -0500 11/9/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 2:05 PM -0500 on 11/9/00, Jim Burnes wrote:
I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis politics and its not pretty.
Agreed. I don't know if it still is, but, say, 23 years ago, St. Louis was a great place to be *from*.
They probably still have you registered as a Democrat from your Young Communist days at journalism school. So, did you vote for the dead guy? --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 5:07 PM -0500 on 11/9/00, Tim May wrote:
They probably still have you registered as a Democrat from your Young Communist days at journalism school. So, did you vote for the dead guy?
I don't know. You'll have to ask Gephart to see how he voted me on Tuesday.
:-).
Besides, Tim, my degree was a worse one than Journalism. It was (a
three-year delayed) *Philosophy* BA. Worse, I *was* going to go to Law
School. In Missouri. (Though eventually, I didn't want to be either a
lawyer or in Missouri anymore. YMMV, of course. I'm not as pissy about it
as I was about it, say, 3 years ago...)
Worse, Tim, I was in the Missouri Student Association Senate. The Public
Issues Committee Chair, no less, spending those evilly confiscated student
fees on all kinds of stupid stuff like candidate debates and pre-election
interviews and recommendations for student voting.
Far worse than even that, I was on the board of the ASUM (we thought the
name was cute, too) The Associated Students of the University of Missouri,
a genuine, frothing-liberal, Nader-inspired PIRG/"Student Lobby", which not
only confiscated student fees, but spent them to *lobby* the legislature
for increased taxes and more money for the University (which, of course,
would allow us to raise our fees, to lobby the legislature with :-)).
So, yes, boys and girls, I flunk the Cypherpunk Life-Long Political Purity
Test.
I Was A Teen-Aged Liberal, a Liberal Until Graduation, whatever. Worse than
that, horrors, I'm still a Unitarian.
Yeah, I know, Tim. I *still* need killing, right?
;-).
Cheers,
RAH
(Who pissed in the political wind twice on Tuesday, once by voting for Bush
in Massachusetts, and again -- or maybe twice again -- by voting for Carla
Howell, the Libertarian, against Teddy Kennedy. BTW, it appears that Carla
got 300,000 votes or so, almost as many as Harry got nationwide. Carla for
President. Probably have to wait for my Mom to die before I can get away
with that one, though. The one person I fear more than Tim May, maybe even
my Roslindale Attorney, being me dear Mum... :-))
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
Well, if it is an unconstitutional election-appointment combination, then technicalities *do* count, if only to keep some respect for that tattered document alive. I don't care much about that election, and it is big of Ashcroft to step aside, but the law turns on what you dismiss as mere "technicalities." -Declan On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:06:09PM -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:
Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters should get. There is no question what the voter wants. They knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife. The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw this out would require finding a serious problem. Technicality is probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate.
Ern
-----Original Message----- X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Jim Burnes [mailto:jburnes@savvis.net] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <973697805.3a09730d4e448@webmail.cotse.com>, on 11/08/00
at 09:36 AM, brflgnk@cotse.com said:
If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator, I think that's exactly what they should get. Leave the seat empty for two years.
Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.
If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office. The governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if the current office holder dies.
Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled. The
governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office must be held before it can be filled. The correct solution would be to hold a special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting into office. What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds (after debates etc).
Here is a question? Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?
jim
-- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 2:05 PM -0500 on 11/9/00, Jim Burnes wrote:
I've seen first hand the intent and demeanor of St. Louis politics and its not pretty.
Agreed. I don't know if it still is, but, say, 23 years ago, St. Louis was a great place to be *from*.
According to the wife, it's a really nice city if you don't mind living in a really big small town. "It's a great place to visit" she says. I disagree, but then I've got family there. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
At 07:14 PM 11/9/00 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
So, yes, boys and girls, I flunk the Cypherpunk Life-Long Political Purity Test.
I Was A Teen-Aged Liberal, a Liberal Until Graduation, whatever. Worse than that, horrors, I'm still a Unitarian.
Heh. I was worse - I was a Republican, but I have rehabilitated myself. (Besides, the Republican Party *did* pay for my first illegal drug use...) Our Quaker meeting back in New Jersey had a few members who'd come over from Unitarianism, because the Unitarians were too structured and dogmatic.... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (7)
-
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
Ernest Hua -
Jim Burnes -
petro -
R. A. Hettinga -
Tim May