Supreme Court Ruling Doesn't Apply In Illinois??

[WildCat]

All you JREF lawyers out there, please comment on this apparent fiasco! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0312050284dec05,1,2724869.story?coll=chi-printmetro-hed) (free registration required)
JONESBORO, Ill. -- A Jonesboro man got a two-week jail sentence after pleading guilty to burning a U.S. flag outside his home in far southern Illinois.

"Have they not heard of Texas vs. Johnson down there?" Yohnka asked, referring to a case in which a Texas law against flag desecration was struck down by the Supreme Court.

This is truly mind-boggling! In case you don't bother registering to see the story, it was his own flag and the only charge was flag desecration.

[Grammatron]

This is truly insane. Even though there is more to this story than him simply burning a flag, I still think it's quite asinine to be not only arrested for but also incarcerated for this crime.

Here's a link to a story where you don't need to subscribe

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/2003/12/04/build/top/TOP004.html

[Cecil]

What the hell is his lawyer doing, allowing him to plead guilty to an unconstitutional charge?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cecil
What the hell is his lawyer doing, allowing him to plead guilty to an unconstitutional charge?
Setting up a test case to knock down the law in an appeals court?

At the end of the 'monkey trial', Clarence Darrow instructed the jury to find his client guilty for just that reason.

[WildCat]

Thanks for the extra link, Grammatron. The Tribune story didn't mention any of the other charges, but he was sentenced to 14 days for flag desecration. What a crappy lawyer he had.

[jj]

Welll, that sounds outright unconstitutional, but somehow I smell a plea agreement and some coercion regarding some of the other issues, like his probation violations, etc.

It is, though, a shame that could be used to coerce him to plead guilty to a crime that isn't a crime.

I mean, come on. "Flag Desecration". Flags are SACRED? Really? IF they are, does that mean that the pledge is recognizing the RELIGION OF THE FLAG!?!?!?

I don't even wanna go there. Sheeesh!

[jj]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Setting up a test case to knock down the law in an appeals court?

At the end of the 'monkey trial', Clarence Darrow instructed the jury to find his client guilty for just that reason.

AP, can he appeal if he pled guilty?

[WildCat]

I should have known all the lawyers here wouldn't see this on a Friday. They're all out golfing or some other shenanigans. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by jj


AP, can he appeal if he pled guilty?
IANAL. Obviously.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by WildCat
I should have known all the lawyers here wouldn't see this on a Friday. They're all out golfing or some other shenanigans. ;)

Nah. I was working for once.

I'd have to see the court documents before I really could make sense out of this. I've seen dumber things happen in misdemeanor court, but not many.

I don't get a clear sense from the news accounts.

Generally, you waive your right to appeal when you plead guilty. There are a few exceptions, and it is unclear in this situation.

My gambling guess was it was a plea bargain to avoid a felony charge. Real easy to speak of constitutional platitudes while sitting behind a computer, a lot harder when you are facing a trip to the House Of No Fun.

If you had the choice between pleading guilty to flag burning and doing a few days in the local jail, or not pleading and doing five or so years in a real prison and be labeled a felon, which would you choose?

Now, if you are that guy's lawyer, what would you advise?

[Michael Redman]

At this point, he could maybe try for a habeus federal appeal, claiming to have been punished by an invalid state law, but challenging his conviction would probably violate his plea agreement, and the prosecutors would then be free to prosecute him for whatever they agreed to not prosecute him for in the deal.

(I swear my writing is getting less concise by the day.)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
At this point, he could maybe try for a habeus federal appeal, claiming to have been punished by an invalid state law, but challenging his conviction would probably violate his plea agreement, and the prosecutors would then be free to prosecute him for whatever they agreed to not prosecute him for in the deal.

(I swear my writing is getting less concise by the day.)

Yep, all habeas relief would do is invalidate the conviction, which invalidates the deal, which puts him back on square one. Plus, generally there is no guaranteed right to appointed counsel in a habeas proceeding; counsel can be appointed at the court's discretion.

[jj]

Originally posted by WildCat
I should have known all the lawyers here wouldn't see this on a Friday. They're all out golfing or some other shenanigans. ;)

No, today is civil-case day in many places.

[shanek]

All of these issues that Suddenly and others have brought up are exactly why things should never be allowed to get to this point. That's why I really have a problem with all of the people here who say, "Well, if it's so wrong, if Congress/the President/the State/prosecuters/police/whoever violate the Constitution it'll just get shot down by the Supreme Court." But they don't think about all of the lives that are disrupted and the incredible time and expense involved in doing this.

There needs to be Constitutional enforcement. Particularly in a case like this, where the unconstitutionality has already been established, the police, prosecutors, and any other government agent involved in this arrest should themselves be put on a stand and made to defend themselves from their own illegal actions.

[WildCat]

I agree w/ Shanek. An unconstitutional law shouldn't be allowed as leverage to force a plea bargain.

[Ed]

Originally posted by WildCat
I agree w/ Shanek. An unconstitutional law shouldn't be allowed as leverage to force a plea bargain.

ergo prosecuters, cops play supreme court?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed


ergo prosecuters, cops play supreme court?

Yeah. While I appreciate shanek's passion for defense of constitutional rights in the criminal arena, his suggestion doesn't make any sense.

Most simply put, the real "wrong-doer" in this case would be, by shanek's measure, the Illinois legislature for having the stinking thing on the books to begin with. It is a law, just as any other, just one for which a pretty clear and basic defense exists. I'd hope nobody is comfortable with a process where legislators can be criminally charged for the substance of the legislation. Such a process would be contrary to free government and invite abuse of the most horrid nature. All it does is add another layer of authority that everyone can disagree with. However, there is a further absurdity to this idea.

The courts do not literally "strike down" laws. They remain on the books until legislative action is taken. All a court really does is find that the law in question is contrary to higher law and thus the higher law prevents the operation of the lesser law in that case. Then, that same ruling usually is applied to cases under that law or similar laws in the same jurisdiction by operation of binding authority. It can affect laws in other jurisdictions by persuasive authority. This does not prevent future laws on the same topic from being passed and found valid; it doesn't even prevent that same law being later found valid by a higher court or even that same court reversing it's earlier decision.

There is no conclusive prohibition against flag-burning statutes, as the courts lack that sort of power to prohibit future laws. All they can say is that the existing law is contrary to the constitution for specific reasons. If a state then somehow passes a law that prohibits the activity that avoids the specific reasons mentioned in the opinion, then that law could be valid. This is how today some states have the death penalty in the U.S. even though the court declared the death penalty unconstitutional at one point.

I guess my point is somehow criminally enforcing "constitutional" limitations such as this does nothing but put excessive power on the hands of the people who have the last word in interpreting what exactly the constitution says.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Most simply put, the real "wrong-doer" in this case would be, by shanek's measure, the Illinois legislature for having the stinking thing on the books to begin with. It is a law, just as any other,

Except for the fact that it's unconstitutional.

I'd hope nobody is comfortable with a process where legislators can be criminally charged for the substance of the legislation.

I didn't say criminally charged. But they should be brought before a grand jury and impeached. It's clear by now that there has to be some kind of enforcement of this or there's really nothing stopping the government from doing whatever it wants to us.

As it is, there's just no accountability at all. It doesn't have to go to the other extreme, but there needs to be something.

[Ed]

It appears that what is "constitutional" is a moveable feast. For any law it always remains to be tested. And then it might be idosyncratic. So a law is constitutional for that moment that the court finds that a specific application of that law passes their test.

The thing is, Shane, that you really have no idea if this law or any other is constitutional. It is exclusively up to the SC. So you can say "except it's not ..." but you don't know.

As far as inditing legislators, I am fully in favor of something more painful just on general principles. However, I assume that you can spell the word "quagmire". To expect our legislators to be constitutional scholars is really too much.

And, Shane, isn't it a crime about the Royal Armouries?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Except for the fact that it's unconstitutional.

Which, as I said, means that the defendant can use that as a defense in court against that charge. It doesn't just evaporate. Simply a legal precident is set. That is it.



I didn't say criminally charged. But they should be brought before a grand jury and impeached. It's clear by now that there has to be some kind of enforcement of this or there's really nothing stopping the government from doing whatever it wants to us.

As it is, there's just no accountability at all. It doesn't have to go to the other extreme, but there needs to be something.

Ever hear of a voting booth? That whole democracy thing? You seem to be arguing for some sort of extra layer of government to govern the one we have. How are they chosen, and who watches them? The legislature has an automatic impeachment system, it's called an election.

So, who really is to blame is the voters of Illinois, as they elected a legislature that kept an unconstitutional law on the books. Should they be indicted as well?

Why do you want so much government? I could have sworn you were against that...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Why do you want so much government? I could have sworn you were against that... [/B]

:D

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

I didn't say criminally charged. But they should be brought before a grand jury and impeached. It's clear by now that there has to be some kind of enforcement of this or there's really nothing stopping the government from doing whatever it wants to us.

As it is, there's just no accountability at all. It doesn't have to go to the other extreme, but there needs to be something.

Out of curiosity, why should the legislature be impeached for passing an untested law? (This is assuming that the law was passed before it was ruled unconstitutional.)

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So, who really is to blame is the voters of Illinois, as they elected a legislature that kept an unconstitutional law on the books. Should they be indicted as well?
Can't indict me, I didn't vote last election. (I've kinda been skipping the non-presidential years)

Er, wait, maybe that means you can indict me.... ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which, as I said, means that the defendant can use that as a defense in court against that charge. It doesn't just evaporate. Simply a legal precident is set. That is it. [/b]

And we're back to the problem I originally mentioned:

Ever hear of a voting booth? That whole democracy thing?

Yes, and that might make a good argument if elections were in any way fair anymore.

You seem to be arguing for some sort of extra layer of government to govern the one we have.

Those layers were there before. Once they were removed, we started having this problem to a much greater degree.

Why do you want so much government? I could have sworn you were against that...

As I keep trying to explain, I'm not against government! The problem is that government is doing so much that it shouldn't be doing (many many things discussed at length in other threads) and not enough of what it should be doing (which is protecting our rights, and that is what we're discussing here).

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Out of curiosity, why should the legislature be impeached for passing an untested law? (This is assuming that the law was passed before it was ruled unconstitutional.)

For your information, it happens quite often in this country that a legislature or Congress proposes a law, and even the proponents of the law admit it's unconstitutional but they vote for it anyway.

Saying that legislators have no authority or business to determine the constitutionality of a law they're about to pass is just ludicrous, especially given the oath that they swear. That's what I was referring to with people saying that the courts are the only ones who should determine whether a law is unconstitutional or not. The courts are just supposed to be a last-ditch effort if the other methods (most of which are now gone) fail.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


And we're back to the problem I originally mentioned: What problem? All I can tell is you misunderstand what it means for a law to be unconstitutional. You also seem to think legislators can be "impeached" by an outside authority. Your "problem" seems to be a product of that misunderstanding.

Yes, and that might make a good argument if elections were in any way fair anymore. Anymore? When were they fairer than they are now? What basis do you have for this?



Those layers were there before. Once they were removed, we started having this problem to a much greater degree. ??? What layer was there that impeached legislators? I'm hoping there has been a communications breakdown here, as I hope we are talking about different things.



As I keep trying to explain, I'm not against government! The problem is that government is doing so much that it shouldn't be doing (many many things discussed at length in other threads) and not enough of what it should be doing (which is protecting our rights, and that is what we're discussing here).

I know, but it really sounds like you want "Mommy Government" to do the job that is pretty specifically the province of the voters, that is keeping a leash on legislators.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

For your information, it happens quite often in this country that a legislature or Congress proposes a law, and even the proponents of the law admit it's unconstitutional but they vote for it anyway.

Saying that legislators have no authority or business to determine the constitutionality of a law they're about to pass is just ludicrous, especially given the oath that they swear. That's what I was referring to with people saying that the courts are the only ones who should determine whether a law is unconstitutional or not. The courts are just supposed to be a last-ditch effort if the other methods (most of which are now gone) fail.

Fair enough. I'm sure that, in this case, the Illinois legislature passed the "No flag burning" law in full understanding that it might be unconstitutional. Other laws struck down might not be so obvious.

Unfortunately, IIRC, only the Illinois House and Senate have the ability to punish members. So "popular" laws like banning flag burning wouldn't get a Illinois Congressmen in trouble at all. That's what the courts get stuck with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What problem? All I can tell is you misunderstand what it means for a law to be unconstitutional. You also seem to think legislators can be "impeached" by an outside authority. Your "problem" seems to be a product of that misunderstanding.

No, I'm not misunderstanding what the situation is, I'm saying what I think the situation should be. Why are you completely incapable of telling the difference?

Anymore? When were they fairer than they are now?

When you could get on the ballot without having to bankrupt your party's account just for the privilege of being listed while your competition gets a free ride; when you could raise as much money as you wanted without having to worry about "campaign finance" restrictions levied against you, while your competition gets millions of dollars in taxpayer money; when your First Amendment rights allowed you to say whatever you wanted to say, purchase as much advertising as you want, etc. without having to worry about "election reform" laws and your competition getting free press all the while; when you could, if nothing else, be a write-in candidate and actually have your votes counted;...

Shall I go on?

What layer was there that impeached legislators?

I didn't claim there was one. I claimed that there were measures to stop unconstitutional legislation that are no longer in place. Impeachment of legislators was just another possible solution I mentioned.

I know, but it really sounds like you want "Mommy Government" to do the job that is pretty specifically the province of the voters, that is keeping a leash on legislators.

"Mommy government" has nothing to do with it! The job of government is to protect our rights! How is it a form of "mommy government" to want them held accountable for their own actions? How is it "mommy government" to actually want to hold them to their oaths of office?

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Fair enough. I'm sure that, in this case, the Illinois legislature passed the "No flag burning" law in full understanding that it might be unconstitutional. Other laws struck down might not be so obvious.

And I never said that there shouldn't be any kind of review. Note that I specifically said they should have the opportunity to defend themselves.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I'm not misunderstanding what the situation is, I'm saying what I think the situation should be. Why are you completely incapable of telling the difference?

If you are going to use some bizzaro world concept of what it means for a law to be found constitutional, then perhaps you should make that clear. It seemed clear to me that you were laboring under the mistaken notion that whether a particular law is "unconstitutional" is concrete and certain, rather than something that is usually ambiguous to some degree. There really is no "should be" here, unless you want ambiguity to disappear, which would be a pretty nifty trick.



When you could get on the ballot without having to bankrupt your party's account just for the privilege of being listed while your competition gets a free ride; when you could raise as much money as you wanted without having to worry about "campaign finance" restrictions levied against you, while your competition gets millions of dollars in taxpayer money; when your First Amendment rights allowed you to say whatever you wanted to say, purchase as much advertising as you want, etc. without having to worry about "election reform" laws and your competition getting free press all the while; when you could, if nothing else, be a write-in candidate and actually have your votes counted;...

Shall I go on?
Yeah. Have somebody wake me up when you get to the part where you answer the question about when this was. When exactly was all of this different, and how does this outweigh the positive changes made since then, little things like the near elimination of gender and racial discrimination? The claim wasn't that things could be better; it was that they were better. Pick a specific time period.





I didn't claim there was one. I claimed that there were measures to stop unconstitutional legislation that are no longer in place. Impeachment of legislators was just another possible solution I mentioned. What specific measures that are not in place? That legislators may have been more aware of constitutional issues in the past is both neither a specific measure nor is it true just because someone says so.

The reality is that it is a pure political question. The legislator is not bound by the courts and can come to her own conclusion as to whether a law is constitutional. That they may believe that a court will disagree with the legislator's conclusions is part of the checks and balances. You seem to suggest that there be someone capable of impeachment of a legislator because they decide differently than the courts.

Again, there is no such thing as "unconstitutional legislation" at passage. Only legislation that the legislature may believe will be held unenforcable by the courts, but is passed as the legislature holds a different constitutional opinion on the matter.



"Mommy government" has nothing to do with it! The job of government is to protect our rights! How is it a form of "mommy government" to want them held accountable for their own actions? How is it "mommy government" to actually want to hold them to their oaths of office?

It is "mommy government" because you don't like the laws being passed and maintained by elected representitives, and you want some form of governmental authority to come in and get rid of all those mean people that disagree with you about how things work. Other voters just don't seem to worry about these problems you are obsessed with, so you go crying that "mommy government" should step in and make everybody else play by the rules as you see them.

It is a form of "mommy government" to try to use force (at gunpoint, as Libertarians often say) to strip from the people the right to determine who represents them in the legislature based on political differences. The voters hold the legislators accountable for their own actions, and oath of office. Just because they don't do it as you would have them do it doesn't justify your going screaming to "mommy government" to have her make them "play nice" at gunpoint.

[Tony]

How can an injustice like this happen in a "civilized" society that believes in free-speech?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[personal abuse deleted]

Yeah. Have somebody wake me up when you get to the part where you answer the question about when this was.

It wasn't at any one particular time. It happened over decades, starting with the end of the Civil War when the Federal government made the rebelling states change their Constitutions under duress, and also, under duress, passed the 14th Amendment, which, while I agree with a lot of what it does, did make the dreadful mistake of making people citizens of the US instead of their sovereign states (notice how few people say "these United States" anymore as opposed to "the United States"). Then there's the 17th Amendment which removed state representation in Congress. Then there's the 16th Amendment, which, whole not specifically removing any checks and balances, gave the government the resources to basically do whatever it wanted. And those are just the Constitutional changes.

When exactly was all of this different, and how does this outweigh the positive changes made since then, little things like the near elimination of gender and racial discrimination?

What does that have to do with the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws?

[more abuse and special pleading deleted]

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
[personal abuse deleted]



Since when is pointing out that the constitutional basis of a particular statute is ambiguous personal abuse? I guess when you are shown to be wrong you scream personal abuse. Starting to see a trend in that regard...


It wasn't at any one particular time. It happened over decades, starting with the end of the Civil War when the Federal government made the rebelling states change their Constitutions under duress, and also, under duress, passed the 14th Amendment, which, while I agree with a lot of what it does, did make the dreadful mistake of making people citizens of the US instead of their sovereign states (notice how few people say "these United States" anymore as opposed to "the United States"). Then there's the 17th Amendment which removed state representation in Congress. Then there's the 16th Amendment, which, whole not specifically removing any checks and balances, gave the government the resources to basically do whatever it wanted. And those are just the Constitutional changes. None of these directly show how elections used to be fairer than they are now. These amendments do nothing whatsoever to show it was less fair; all you are doing is assuming you are correct and trying to explain where it changed. If you can't show that elections were fairer in the past just admit it. Why try to fool people with this approach?



What does that have to do with the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws? Nice dodge. You said elections used to be fairer. This was part of that point. It has nothing to do with "the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws" aside from the fact that you have cited "unfair elections" as a basis for your wanting to force legislators at gunpoint to do what you think is right. (Isn't it annoying when someone uses your own rhetoric against you?)

[more abuse and special pleading deleted]

Again. You asked why it was "mommy government" and I told you. It is only "abuse" in that it exposes your argument for what it is, a call for a higher authority to overrule people that do not agree with you about the constitutionality of a particular measure.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Since when is pointing out that the constitutional basis of a particular statute is ambiguous personal abuse?

Phrases like "bizzaro world concept" are what makes things like that personal abuse, when you go beyond just commenting on the argument to attacking someone's overall views.

None of these directly show how elections used to be fairer than they are now.

That wasn't the question I was responding to. I was responding to the constitutional checks and balances question. I have already responded to the election question, a response which you dodged.

These amendments do nothing whatsoever to show it was less fair;

Those amendments removed checks and balances against the government establishing unconstitutional laws.

If you can't show that elections were fairer in the past

I can and I did. I specifically mentioned several things government has done recently to make it difficult if not impossible for challengers to unseat the incumbents. You have no response for it.

It has nothing to do with "the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws"

Yes, it does! ALL of those things that I mentioned where changes that took away some sort of defense mecanism against the passage of unconstitutional laws, or enabled the government to pass them!

Again. You asked why it was "mommy government" and I told you.

You're just using weasel words here. "Mommy government" means that the government is intruding into our lives to make us safer or better or smarter or whatever. In NO WAY AT ALL does the goverment placing restrictions on itself and what it can do constitute "mommy government." You're just using weasel words because you can't argue the point.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Phrases like "bizzaro world concept" are what makes things like that personal abuse, when you go beyond just commenting on the argument to attacking someone's overall views. Nope, you claimed you were saying things as they "should be" not as they "were" and I was pointing out that your "should be" cannot exist usless you eliminate ambiguity from reality, which is a "bizzaro world concept." I do find it ironic that someone as generally abusive as you gets distracted the first time someone tosses some of your hyperbole back at you. But I'm just a "bigoted liar" right? Also you may want to note I ridiculed your ideas, while you in the past usually ignore that and go straight at the person. I'm a "bigoted liar," Manifesto is a "lying bigot" and Luke T. is also a "bigot" according to you.

So save your indignation unless you want to issue a wholescale apology for your own personal attacks.



That wasn't the question I was responding to. I was responding to the constitutional checks and balances question. I have already responded to the election question, a response which you dodged. Here is the exact progression:

I said that elections were the proper means for watching over legislators, rather than some "impeachment" scheme or whatever. Your exact response:
Yes, and that might make a good argument if elections were in any way fair anymore.

I then asked for you for some basis for why elections aren't fair "anymore."

Your first attempt was a simple laundry list of things you don't like about the system.

Your second attempt was a list of constitutional amendments that you don't like. One was the amendment allowing income tax. No actual evidence that things once were better; you just assumed that was so and tried to explain why things got worse. Plus, you went back beyond the civil war, so I guess elections were fairer when blacks were not allowed to vote in most places and they counted as fractions of a person for purposes of representation? How is that even possible in your mind?

Those amendments removed checks and balances against the government establishing unconstitutional laws. Like I said, you raised them as proof that elections used to be fairer, and they don't relate to that. Is this your way of admitting you avoided the question?

I can and I did. I specifically mentioned several things government has done recently to make it difficult if not impossible for challengers to unseat the incumbents. You have no response for it. You never made a specific claim about it being easier to unseat incumbants. The claim you made, as cited above, was that elections are not fair anymore, implying they were fairer in the past .The only specific changes you identified were those three amendments, none of which provide clear support for your point. Plus the way to defeat an incumbent is for another candidate to get more votes. That hasn't changed. I suspect you are talking about ballot access for third parties, but you have identified no particular changes or shown that this is tougher now than before, you did complain a little in the first post, but cited no substantive change in practice.

Once you can show that things are tougher than they used to be, then you need to explain how that makes elections less "fair" considering other changes in the same time period, like women and those of draftee age being allowed to vote, as well as tougher laws to protect the rights of blacks in the south.



Yes, it does! ALL of those things that I mentioned where changes that took away some sort of defense mecanism against the passage of unconstitutional laws, or enabled the government to pass them!

This is what you responded to: It has nothing to do with "the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws"

Which isn't even the whole sentence. Let's put it back in context, with the part you selectively used bolded: Nice dodge. You said elections used to be fairer. This was part of that point. It has nothing to do with "the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws" aside from the fact that you have cited "unfair elections" as a basis for your wanting to force legislators at gunpoint to do what you think is right. (Isn't it annoying when someone uses your own rhetoric against you?)
The words I was referring to in the bold portion that had " nothing to do with 'the ability of government to get away with passing unjust laws'" were my own. I said those words were directed towards you claim that elections are not "in any way fair anymore,'" and not your fixation on "creating unconstitutional laws."

You took my words out of context and presented them in such a way to imply I said something other than what I did. This is very much the definition of dishonest debate. I am actually suprised you have stooped to such tactics.

Given that, I will point out that your response, even given your liberties with my words, still is not true. You have cited no positive governmental action or mechanism that prevents or even punishes legislators for passing what you call "unconstitutional laws."


You're just using weasel words here. "Mommy government" means that the government is intruding into our lives to make us safer or better or smarter or whatever. In NO WAY AT ALL does the goverment placing restrictions on itself and what it can do constitute "mommy government." You're just using weasel words because you can't argue the point.

The government would be in effect placing restrictions on who the voters can select as legislators based on the substantive political opinions and viewpoints of those officeholders. It is one thing to impeach or censure based on misbehaviour, another that you want to kick people out because of differences of political opinion. It gets even worse when you consider that the only time these opinions turn into law is when a majority of our elected representitives agree.

I stand by the point that using governmental force to deprive citizens their chosen representation based on the political beliefs of those representitves is an example of the worst kind of "Mommy government."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I then asked for you for some basis for why elections aren't fair "anymore."

Your first attempt was a simple laundry list of things you don't like about the system.

That's bull$#!7 and you know it. ALL of those things I mentioned affect the fairness of elections, and I explained why. I answered your question. You may not like it, but grow up and accept it. I answered your question; now you must respond to my answer.

Your second attempt was a list of constitutional amendments that you don't like.

Which was in response to your question about what took away the previous checks and balances against unconstitutional laws. Again, I answered my question, and you're just trying to get out of considering them.

Like I said, you raised them as proof that elections used to be fairer,

No, I raised them as proof that elections are not fair today. Cut the crap, cut the special pleading, cut the blind, emotional, and BIGOTED—YES, BIGOTED—behavior and responses and respond to my answers.

(And when you lie, it's not a personal attack to call you a liar. Likewise, when you make bigoted remarks, it's not a personal attack to call you a bigot. Look to your own problems and deal with them. Don't take them out on others.)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


That's bull$#!7 and you know it. ALL of those things I mentioned affect the fairness of elections, and I explained why. I answered your question. You may not like it, but grow up and accept it. I answered your question; now you must respond to my answer.


Which was in response to your question about what took away the previous checks and balances against unconstitutional laws. Again, I answered my question, and you're just trying to get out of considering them. No it wasn't. It is clear from the posts that your amendment list was part of the "elections are not fair anymore" claim you seem to spend a lot of time trying to distract from. Just go back and look. I'm actually starting to find it humerous.



No, I raised them as proof that elections are not fair today. Cut the crap, cut the special pleading, cut the blind, emotional, and BIGOTED—YES, BIGOTED—behavior and responses and respond to my answers.

Was the "bigoted" part when I pointed out you took comments out of context? I notice you are ignoring my calling you on your poor behaviour. Maybe you think your renewed personal attacks will distract from your documented dishonest tactics.

The assertion you made was that elections are not fair "anymore." Just pointing out things you don't like goes very little to proving this. Your "goes to the fairness of elections" is simple goal-shifting, as it ignores the temporal aspect of your claim.

Plus I am proud to be a member of the class you consider a "bigot." Manifesto and Luke T. seem to me to be fine company, and I consider it a compliment to be considered in their class.

(And when you lie, it's not a personal attack to call you a liar. Likewise, when you make bigoted remarks, it's not a personal attack to call you a bigot. Look to your own problems and deal with them. Don't take them out on others.)

Then is it a personal attack to call you "stupid" if you say something stupid? I would say yes. You above simply admit you are taking these arguments and making them personal. The fact you consider the above a justification for your behaviour is quite telling. Not to mention rather hypocritical. Your complaints about abuse started with my calling your position a bizzaro world concept. Note I didn't say you were bizzare, or anything about your person. Yet, you considered that personal abuse, but when you call me a bigot that is not personal abuse. Amazing.

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek


It wasn't at any one particular time. It happened over decades, starting with the end of the Civil War when the Federal government made the rebelling states change their Constitutions under duress, and also, under duress, passed the 14th Amendment, which, while I agree with a lot of what it does, did make the dreadful mistake of making people citizens of the US instead of their sovereign states (notice how few people say "these United States" anymore as opposed to "the United States").

... I want to know more about this 14th Amendment problem. You say that you agree with a lot of what it does (presumably in a concrete way), but then criticize it in abstract ways, such as "making people citizens of the US ..." What are the practical problems arising from the 14th Amendment? Is it just a philosophical problem with being answerable to the larger political entity? Is a state government, ipso facto, more deserving of power than the federal government? Why? Seems to me that a lot of good, especially in the area of fair elections at all levels, has come from enforcement of the 14th Amendment. What's the problem?

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
What are the practical problems arising from the 14th Amendment?

It completely redefined the relationship between the US government and the states. Before then, states were sovereign entities, virtually countries unto themselves, who nonetheless were in some ways restricted and controlled by the Federal government. Now, the idea is that the Federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants and trump the states, something the 10th Amendment was ratified to avoid.

Add to that the 17th Amendment, which removed representation of the states in Congress, and now we see the states are pretty much powerless against the Federal government, which imposes things like drinking ages etc. that ordinarily it wouldn't have any jurisdiction to do.

Is a state government, ipso facto, more deserving of power than the federal government? Why?

Because it's a lot easier to move to another state than it is to another country if you don't like the way things are being run. It's also much easier to move from one community to another, which is why from the start this country was set up with a minimalistic amount of power at the top, gradually increasing as it goes down (but never infringing on the rights of the individual, the most sovereign entity). Now, with a Federal government that tells us what size our toilets must be and how we can eat our hamburger, I think you'd be hard pressed to show how that's the case anymore.

Yes, the 14th Amendment did do a lot of good, by making it clear that the states cannot infringe on our sovereign rights. unfortunately, it gave more power to the Federal government in the process.