if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Tinseltown
by Lee
Okay, we’re off to Universal Studios. Please feel free to use the comments to this post as an open discussion on whatever you like.
Comments
Wow, that must include some liberals too.
They’re like that prick at happy hour that will sit and drink, and when it’s their turn to buy a round, they runoff, and then call you an asshole to add insult to injury as they’re walking out the door.
Its not so bad being a dick. see dicks fuck pussies. and pussies are always pissed off cause they get fucked by dicks. Then there are the assholes. See pussies and dicks can get along cause .......
Wow, that must include some liberals too.
If you remember, only 38% said they were unhappy with the outcome of the election. This suggests that there are a *lot* more right-thinking types in this country than liberals would have you believe, and that either quite a lot simply protest voted against Bush’s spending and/or social conservatism, or, well, or the vote fraud scandal is much much bigger than we all think. I suspect the former, though. So really, both polls are within the margin of error to suggest the same people who didn’t mind the election’s outcome hate the frogs.
I’m waiting for a majority to finally become aware that France is actively our enemy.
I’m waiting for a majority to finally become aware that France is actively our enemy.
Your enemy? Coming from the England I am not immune to my countries enjoyment in the odd bit of French bashing; but your enemy?
Not far from it. It seems the only time they watch our backs is when they plan on putting a knife in it.
Ooohhhh, Universal Studios - one of my favorite places.... Tell us what you think of the ‘Superman’ ride when you get back....
Coming from the England I am not immune to my countries enjoyment in the odd bit of French bashing; but your enemy?
Joint naval maneuvers with the Communist Chinese to intimidate Taiwan, our ally, before elections? Check.
Pushing the EU to sell modern arms to Communist China? Check.
Celebrating and propping up tyranny across the Middle East, including cooperating with China to protect their oil interests in Sudan while the allied Arab regime murders and gangrapes the natives by the tens of thousands? Check.
Colluding with the increasingly dominant demographic of Islamofascists in their own society? Check.
Mark my words: When the next great war comes, France will be on the other side. If you don’t believe that, just bear in mind that Japan and Italy were both on our side in World War I. Just a few decades later we had to nuke one and overrun the other.
Oh, and those are just the modern points. If we wanted to go back a way, we could look at little things like their kinda-sorta withdrawel from NATO and kinda-sorta-cooperation with the Soviet Union, forcing the British and Americans to expend a huge amount of intelligence resources just to make sure France wasn’t about to become a Soviet satellite state in their stupid quest to be an “independent sphere”.
The French are only dating the West these days, they’re hardly married to us. In fact, it looks like they’ve been fucking everybody else behind our back for a few decades now.
Manwhore-
You seem to be quite the expert.
Well, Israel is taking part in NATO excercizes for the first time. Also, there’s been a guilty verdict in the Tyco trial-grand larceny and conspiracy.
Good summation Aaron.
This is interesting. A clear Red/Blue delineation, not that I’m passing judgement. Far from it.
It’s funny that France has a huge immigration problem, and they pay people to have kids. If they showered more they wouldn’t be so smelly and have more sex.
This is interesting. A clear Red/Blue delineation, not that I’m passing judgement. Far from it.
The top and bottom ten US areas by marijuana usage per capita. Being from Denver, I am only slightly surprised that Boulder, CO came in at number two. I thought they might’ve been number one.
Here’s some red meat for the leftwingnuts:
WASHINGTON – A subsidiary of Houston-based Halliburton has been awarded a $30 million contract to build an improved 220-bed prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon announced.
A story from Drudge says a new poll shows 65% of Americans dislike the French. Let’s get that number up people.
Considering the percentage of people who are politically knowledgeable, I think 65% is pretty impressive.
...bear in mind that Japan and Italy were both on our side in World War I. Just a few decades later we had to nuke one and overrun the other.
Perhaps France ought to bear that in mind.
Your enemy? Coming from the England I am not immune to my countries enjoyment in the odd bit of French bashing; but your enemy?
Its just extreme talk. Seriously Padders, I have to say that the French I met were far better at removing politics from nationality than many other European cunt-rymen.
I have to ask you as a European,though, why do other Europeans bow down to the French so much? Eveything from the Eu to culture many European countries I visited and even where I lived if someone was French it was like a king entered the room.
BTW, one of my freinds (Clem) lives in London, but from France. Hearing a guy from France with an English accent is pretty entertaining.
The top and bottom ten US areas by marijuana usage per capita.
I would like to see the same breakdown for alcohol use. Do you think the top and bottom would be reversed?
European cunt-rymen.
Now that is a misspelling that even I can appreciate.
Hey, you hear about the black kid in Detroit that was bum-rushed by a bunch of non-blacks. Seems he was walking home and about 20 guys jump out of cars and start beating on him with wood. He was apparently beaten for being black by a bunch of NONWHITES
Religion of what now?
spoony: My CIO is from Detroit, and he’ll tell anybody who asks all about it. Chaldean gangs run the streets up there.
It’s true. It’s one of the reasons Conyers is such a knob. That’s his neighborhood.
In other news, Californians aren’t the only ones who are screwed!
Here’s a neat graphic of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for those who are as titilated by this as I am.
Not that I live in fear or anything. It’s more science than emotion for me.
Ah! French-bashing. I think that France was the first country I learned to hate. I remember I was in high school when Reagan decided to “send a message” to Libya for their bombing of a German disco. The safest and most direct route for our bombers/escorts would have proceeded through French airspace. However, the French government refused to grant our aircraft permission to over-fly. So our guys had to swing all the way around the Iberian, substantially lengthening the trip to Libya and increasing the danger to our pilots. Although we got the job done, I never got over that. And since, the French have never disappointed me in the “fucking douche-bag department.”
zetaphi: Didn’t we “accidently” drop a bomb on the French embassy in Libya?
svandals: Yeah, I think our pilots would have been a little more accurate ... if they had gotten a little more SLEEP!! Whoops, sorry about that. :/ channelling the late Sam Kinison
Speaking of French and F***ing How bout an old old old school Doughboy song rrom WWI
“Mademoiselle from Armentieres”
The Basic LyricThe Basic Lyric
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Mademoiselle from Armentieres,
She hasn’t been kissed for forty years!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
The Mademoiselle’s First Trade:
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
She got the palm and the croix de guerre,
For washin’ soldiers’ underwear,
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Versions Elaborating on the Mademoiselle’s Character and Hygiene:
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
You didn’t have to know her long,
To know the reason men go wrong!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
She’s the hardest working girl in town,
But she makes her living upside down!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
The cooties rambled through her hair;
She whispered sweetly “C’est la guerre.”
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
She’ll do it for wine, she’ll do it for rum,
And sometimes for chocolate or chewing gum!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Sometimes the Mademoiselle Moved to other Cities:
Oh, Mademoiselle from St. Nazaire, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from St. Nazaire, Parley-vous
The Mademoiselle from St. Nazaire,
She never washed her underwear.
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Oh, Mademoiselle from Aix-Les-Bains, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Aix-Les-Bains, Parley-vous
Mademoiselle from Aix-Les-Bains,
She gave the Yankees shooting pains!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Adaptations for Blowing Off Steam at the Brass:
Oh, Mademoiselle from Montparnasse, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Montparnasse, Parley-vous
As soon as she’d spy a Colonel’s brass,
She’d take off her skirt and roll in the
grass!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Nostalgic Versions:
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
You might forget the gas and shell
But you’ll nev’r forget the Mademoiselle!
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Where are the girls who used to swarm
About me in my uniform?
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
My personal fav:
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
Oh, Mademoiselle from Armentieres, Parley-vous
She was true to me, she was true to you
She was ture to the whole damn army, too
Hinky-dinky, parlez-vous?
Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 06/17 at 12:28 PM
Mark my words: When the next great war comes, France will be on the other side.
Will we have enough room in gitmo to fit all the surrendering troops?
Posted by zetaphi on 06/17 at 03:27 PM
[...]the French government refused to grant our aircraft permission to over-fly.
Neither did the Spanish. I believe the Socialist Party was in power in Spain at the time. And maybe in France too?
Um, what the <BEEP> does Hinky-dinky mean?
Will we have enough room in gitmo to fit all the surrendering troops?
We’re not going to give them any way to worry about being tortured at Gitmo. We’re just going to line them up and shoot them on the battlefield. Y’see, that’s legal, and we don’t want the Libtards to worry whether we are going to expose them to things their culture might not have prepared them for - like “soap”, “kind manners”, or “food that didn’t start out its life crawling in the garden”.
Posted by Drumwaster on 06/17 at 04:37 PM
“food that didn’t start out its life crawling in the garden”.
Will Koran still allow them to eat that stuff?
Hinky-dinky??
Beats me, the Brits started that one I believe.
Its not so bad being a dick. see dicks fuck pussies. and pussies are always pissed off cause they get fucked by dicks. Then there are the assholes. See pussies and dicks can get along cause .......
all humor aside, that is by far the best explanation of people.
We’re just going to line them up and shoot them on the battlefield. Y’see, that’s legal
Really? Good to know for the next time someone is wailing about “abuse” at Gitmo.
“Hey, we could have just shot them in Afganistan. Quit yer whining!”
Posted by GripeBoy on 06/17 at 04:54 PM
“Hey, we could have just shot them in Afganistan. Quit yer whining!”
But aren’t we abusing them by NOT shooting them, since we’re denying them their opportunity for martyrdom? Which of course once again shows our disrespect for their religion.
;-)
Neither did the Spanish
I think Spain let us use an airbase for some of the planes didn’t they?
Posted by Kilroy on 06/17 at 04:54 PM
In Congress, July 4, 1776
A must read.....
We’re just going to line them up and shoot them on the battlefield.
If there’s any regrets about the WoT thus far, I would say not having done this would top the list atm.
Everyone wants to do it, but I’m the only one who actually will…
PENIS!!!
No, actually, Ship, apparently you’re the only one that wanted to do it.
But since you’ve broken the ice…
OVARY!!!
Who’s next?
I’ll be next!
<BEEP>
Aww, stupid FCC . . .
Is it true the Feds are going to raise the interest rate in July?
I think if its true there will be a collective grown in SoCal. Think about all of those people who bought 500,000 dollar rip offs on interest only loans.
groan, shit.
http://www.airbornejoe.com/downloads/video/unbreakable.wmv
This is by far the coolest thing I have seen in a long time. Let me know please. Word from the front is my guys are kicking some ass today in northestren Iraq. Pray for them. And remember, no better friend, no worse enemy.
{Ding!}
Thanks you, Miss Spears, that means your fifteen minutes are now up. If you wish to renew, you will be forced to either openly display nudity after the child is born, go through a public and vicious divorce to be followed by a new album/concert tour, or take a scene-stealing role in a wildly popular movie. Or any combination.
Sleeping with Brad Pitt during this process is optional.
I remember seeing a mention of a Bob Munck in the Right Drinking post a long while back.
Well, I think I found him. First comment on this post talking about Durbin’s Gitmo comments. No nudity, but viewer discretion is advised.
Pretty fuckin impressive display, rick.
Clitoris!!!
Sorry, I’m late.
Right on manwhore
1500 Poosh-Points to EMalachi. Munck is long overdue an arserape or two.
Hah! And that Liberal Avenger deserves one too.
{sharpens knives}
Bring that fucker on. (I got your back, Poosh.)
If this Bob Munck shows up here, this is a definite “fire in the hole” situation.
We smacked his ass so hard the last time he hasn’t shown his face here since. Bring him on!
Is Lee a closet homosexual? Tonight at 11…
</asshat>
Why would he be in the closet? He lives in L.A. after all. *runs*
Why would he be in the closet? He lives in L.A. after all. *runs*
Thats West LA if he were out. Or Palm Springs.
Ohhh ok then. The question stands. =p
You ever seen those Big City apartments? They’re so damned small, you have to go outside to change your mind!
“Closet”, indeed.
{remembers a studio apartment costing $765/month}
PETA members convicted of cruelty to animal charges.
Choked up my beer when I read this.
I just bookmarked that site, Tj, thanks!
Hey, drop me a line, wouldja?
PETA Kills Animals. Here it is again for people who didn’t see it wherever I placed it last time. ^.^`
It has been dropped.
Was that you? }blinkblink{
OH I have to reply hmpf
hmpf?
I’m practicing at being grumpy for when I get really old. =D
That’s okay, I’ll get there eventually.
{still lost, but okay...}
looks like im late for the party.
The party gets worse:
Remember those flag-dragging cocksuckers Lee posted about from Kansas, the guy belonging to Fred Phelps’ Baptist cult that thing America is a big gay conspiracy?
They’re coming to my area to desecrate a military funeral. I hope somebody whips out a baseball bat.
I can send Tanya Harding your way.
Whack, whack, whack...
lol Gripeboy
Condolences Aaron, and remember, keep your bat “in the closet”.
Hmmm have fun Aaron… go get’em.....
so bob muck hasn’t committed suicide? ...oh darn......
Hell, I dotn know what to say this post has drifted allover the place…
HEY how about that asshole Dick tDurbin?........
the man needs to sit down and read a few history books.
Harley: This’ll make you “smile”. At the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum a couple months ago, Durbin told this joke:
“How do you know Lincoln was a Jew? His name was Abraham, and he was shot in the temple.”
Durbin thought he was hilarious.
Nobody else did.
You ever seen those Big City apartments? They’re so damned small, you have to go outside to change your mind!
Oh my god, I don’t know how you guys do it, living is such a big built up metropolitan area like that....
IT has its disavantages… on 24 hours fast food joint for emergency cravings.... that you can walk to. but helll… i can walk all the way from one side of town to the other in just my shorts and no have a problem what so ever at any time of day or night....walking down the middle of the road in may cases…
BTW.. where the hell you all live?
Aaron, i know you keep up on Ill politics, but i never saw that posted on your site… no shit he said that?......hmmmmm
How did that fly under the MSM radar?.. oh yeah...ok…
It was so far under the radar that I thought it was just a myth until it showed up in the Chicago Tribune today (yes, even the Tribune is on his back about this stupidity), then I did some Googling.
(and it is on my blog now… last night’s post “Goldilocks and the Tortured Bears II")
D*ckhead Durbin must be a riot at funerals…
Western Riverside County, California
Link to map of the area. If you set off a nuke over that star, I’ll definitely know about it!
How these people manage to stay elected is beyond me.
It’s called “gerrymandering”.
Durbin’s a Senator in an at-large state.
What it’s called is “apathetic Chicago Democrats”.
Also, sometimes, “vote fraud”.
These guys would vote for a rottweiler if it were a Democrat, and even if they wouldn’t, the mob would make sure they do anyway.
I think 2008 could potentially be the day we get to take Durbin down though. On the other hand, maybe he’s doing this crazy shit because he’s decided to run again and doesn’t care.
Learn something new everyday. Thanks, Factbot.
Sorry, *not* to run again.
I’d sure like to see Obama lean over his chair and start smacking Durbin profusely though, just for being such an ass.
see Obama lean over his chair and start smacking Durbin profusely though, just for being such an ass.
That would be so cool.
Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 06/17 at 11:57 PM
Durbin’s a Senator in an at-large state.
Actually, Aaron, since the passage of the 12th Amendment, all Senators are elected “at large”, with one-third of the chamber up for re-election every two years on a rotating basis.
But you already knew that, didn’t you?
Thanks, Factbot.
Happy to help! :-)
I was watching the UN cutting votes today on C-Span and after that they were giving speeches on the floor. Some nutcase dem from Cali (no it wasn’t Boxer, I’m not sure who it was though) was going on and on about the awful torture at Gitmo and how she is ashamed of the US etc etc blah blah.
The next speaker was a repub from Georgia who was going to speak about his bill in regard to the borders and how the patriot act will take care of itself if we get off our asses and actually protect our borders and ENFORCE our immigration laws. The point to all that was that before he spoke, he said something like “Thank you to the gentlewoman from California and let me just say, I was in Vietnam, and the idea that what is going on in Gitmo is torture is preposterous!” He made about four statements refuting her mantra and calmly went into his comments.
It was pure gold.
Harley, I’m just outside of Portland, OR. It’s been wet here since, oh, forever. But, the tiki bar is open!
I’m in a little tow of LaGrange… Just north of Hannibal Missouri......
dam this getting up at all times of the night to feed the baby is.............. not too bad..LOL me and the wife switch off…
Tony Snow ,on his radio show was going on about a Congressman who before the soviet union fell, appeared in a Parade in Moscow, with the US flag upside sown… anyone got a idea what his name is?
TJ that sounded sweet.....
Actually, Aaron, since the passage of the 12th Amendment, all Senators are elected “at large”, with one-third of the chamber up for re-election every two years on a rotating basis.
Drum, you’re wrong: The 12th Amendment does not address this issue, I think you mean the 17th, and in recent years various states have chosen to *not* use the at-large districting method (when I learned this in school, I believe there were 2 at the time), instead choosing to divide their state into two seperate single-member districts. In 1992, the DOJ issued this memo in which they stated their belief that the 17th amendment does not intend to allow this, but as far as I know, there is no binding ruling to this effect. So while there may or may not be any states doing this now, the 17th Amendment does not appear to have anything to do with it, and it seems nothing can stop them from doing so at will.
Even if you were right, you would be contradicting yourself: You said gerrymandering, and you can’t gerrymander when there are no districts.
In fact, I’d kill for Chicago to fuck off and have their own Senator so that we can have a normal one.
In fact, maybe downstate should just secede, but that’s another argument.
the 17th Amendment does not appear to have anything to do with it, and it seems nothing can stop them from doing so at will.
Just to be clear there: The 17th Amendment, as explained in the DOJ memo, *does* appear to *assume* at-large election. But it doesn’t sit you down and say “listen up assholes, this is how it’s going to be”. A minimalist can easily and reasonably argue that it is simply silent on the issue, and I’m inclined to lean that way, since when we start talking about what the wording of the Constitution *assumes*, we’re sliding down the same slippery slope the 9th Circuit used to argue the 2nd Amendment is a “collective” right.
There may well be a Supreme Court ruling on this out there somewhere, but I never heard of it.
I am shamed, for Aaron is right. The 12th changes the method of election for POTUS/VPOTUS. It is the 17th that changes the election method for Senators. (Before 1913, they were actually elected by State Legislatures.)
But “elected by the people thereof” is a polite way of saying “at large”, since Senators are defined as representing the whole State, as opposed to groups of population. It may be “implied”, but I can see no other conclusion, since “Senatorial districts” are never mentioned.
You said gerrymandering, and you can’t gerrymander when there are no districts.
It had slipped my mind that you were talking about a Senator. ‘Gerrymandering” is how people like Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Jim McDermott keep getting re-elected. If the citizens had to specifically pick a Representative, rather than just voting for whichever person the Party chooses for them.
If the citizens had to specifically pick a Representative, rather than just voting for whichever person the Party chooses for them.
Finishing up (sigh...)
If the citizens had to specifically pick a Representative, rather than just voting for whichever person the Party chooses for them, I imagine a few of the more extreme people in Congress would be sitting in their study, contemplating their memoirs right now, rather than setting policy and bad-mouthing their country.
If the citizens had to specifically pick a Representative, rather than just voting for whichever person the Party chooses for them, I imagine a few of the more extreme people in Congress would be sitting in their study, contemplating their memoirs right now, rather than setting policy and bad-mouthing their country.
So I take it you’ll join me in my one-man crusade to see to it that the political primary process is reduced to rubble, and replaced by approval voting? Heh.
If I joined you, it wouldn’t be a “one-man crusade”, and who am I to ruin your ideologically-pure goals?
Smarter men than I have suggested changes in the Constitution. I’m for not changing a comma.
But primaries are a State issue, and I don’t live in Illinois. I urge you to descend on your State capital (according to your governor, that’d be Chicago, right?), and make your wishes known.
I was saying that if the citizens were to “fill-in-the-blank” with the name of their choice, instead of voting up/down on a name given to them, the results might be very different.
Too many people just run their index fingers down the list of ‘Party Affiliation’, voting for a party, rather than the individual. That’s how people like Jim McDermott get re-elected.
It may be “implied”, but I can see no other conclusion, since “Senatorial districts” are never mentioned.
Just to be clear here, a person so inclined could reasonably argue that the states are free to define the method by which the people select their senators, and still be in line with the intent of the amendment. Since “Senatorial districts” are never mentioned, it could simply mean that you don’t *have* to use districts, rather than that you can’t. Perhaps women could elect one senator and men could elect the other. But then, that would be stupid
‘cept for some of the stuff that’s already been changed, like that wacky “income tax” thing. That’s gotta go.Smarter men than I have suggested changes in the Constitution. I’m for not changing a comma.
But primaries are a State issue, and I don’t live in Illinois. I urge you to descend on your State capital (according to your governor, that’d be Chicago, right?), and make your wishes known.
We’ve already done away with political parties in Illinois, kinda like how they did in Soviet Russia.
I was saying that if the citizens were to “fill-in-the-blank” with the name of their choice, instead of voting up/down on a name given to them, the results might be very different.
They might well be. Similarly, if we eliminated the tinted lens of party-influence from the process, we might get more honest election outcomes, similar to the California Recall. Primaries, bolstered by party influence never intended in the Constitution and warned against by some of the framers themselves, offer a radically different filter for candidates than that of the general election, which was the only one that was meant to matter. We could have a totally open primary, but then why not just have one election?
Man, I’ve always wondered what it’s like to have a Constitution…
Man, I’ve always wondered what it’s like to have a Constitution…
It’s kind of like having a Bible, but with fewer contradictions and more people who want to read waaaay too far into it.
Just to be clear here, a person so inclined could reasonably argue that the states are free to define the method by which the people select their senators, and still be in line with the intent of the amendment.
I would disagree, for two reasons.
First, because COTUS gives the States the explicit right to determine how they will select Presidential electors (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2 - “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."), but says “elected by the people thereof” in the 17th Amendment. If the authors of that Amendment had wanted to give them an option other than ‘direct popular election’, they would have.
Second, and more convincingly, the whole purpose of the 17th Amendment was to take the choice of Senator away from the Legislators and give it back to the people. If the Legislatures get to determine the methods of choosing the Senator, that violates the intent of the Amendment.
but says “elected by the people thereof” in the 17th Amendment. If the authors of that Amendment had wanted to give them an option other than ‘direct popular election’, they would have.
This is equally reasonable, but are you then suggesting that we are to extrapolate a whole system of election laws from the vague outline given in the Constitution, or do you concede that the Constitution clearly intends the states to set their own election laws?
All I’m saying is that it is not an unreasonable or obviously incorrect position that the Amendment means that the people are to choose, and *that’s all it means*. All it says is that the people of the state are to elect two Senators. It does not say they cannot come up with whatever wacky methodology to deliver those two elected Senators that they like.
the whole purpose of the 17th Amendment was to take the choice of Senator away from the Legislators and give it back to the people. If the Legislatures get to determine the methods of choosing the Senator, that violates the intent of the Amendment.
While this is logically plausible, it isn’t expressed in the text of the law. The Constitution demands that the states provide to their people a republican form of government, but it does not therefore imply, for example, that they must have a bicameral legislature. That phrase, while clear as a bell in directing the states as to what direction to take, leaves it up to the states to design their own system of government.
So why is it to be extrapolated from an equally nebulous phrase that in order for the people of a state to elect two senators, they must all vote in one general election for each? It does not violate the intent of the Amendment to let the legislatures determine the methods of choosing a Senator any more than it does when they make any other election law, so long as the people of the state are free to cast their votes accordingly and elect two Senators through those methods.
It does not say they cannot come up with whatever wacky methodology to deliver those two elected Senators that they like.
Thus, the wish for a clear winner, and the only way that can happen is to narrow the field to just one or two. (aka, the “Primary"). One state says that if any candidate wins 51% in the Primary, there is no need for a run-off election. One state says that it’s only the top two vote-getters (which can occasionally have two Democrats or two Republicans running against each other.
Elections can vary in form and style, but the function - allowing the individual to cast a secret ballot in favor of one candidate or another - remains unchanged.
The fact is that it is a vote of “the people”, rather than their State representatives, who elect the Senators.
The Constitution demands that the states provide to their people a republican form of government, but it does not therefore imply, for example, that they must have a bicameral legislature.
First, there is only one State that has a unicameral Legislature - Nebraska. But no one is defining “republican form of government” as “bicameral legislature”. “Republican”, in that case, meaning “a state or country that is led by people that don’t base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country”. And the Constitution says nothing about the structure of the various State Governments or sub-State political structures (cities, townships, parishes, counties, “independent cities”, or what have you), because those are local issues.
The whole idea behind the Constitution was that the closer they are to home, the more power people have - from the utter control of “a man’s home is his castle” to some control over his neighbors to a mild amount of control over people at the other end of town to a little control over someone at the other end of the county to almost no control at all over someone at the other end of the State, and literally none at all over someone living in another State.
It does not violate the intent of the Amendment to let the legislatures determine the methods of choosing a Senator any more than it does when they make any other election law,
But if they wanted to let the Legislatures choose who the Senator was going to be, why bother with the 17th Amendment to begin with? There was enough of a problem with “cronyism” back then to cause enough people to agree that the change was necessary.
Maybe I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The State Legislatures have very little authority over how Federal officials are elected. Federal Law sets Election Day as the day after the First Monday in November, but I’m curious as to what other kinds of laws you think can be imposed without violating the Constitution.
It does not violate the intent of the Amendment to let the legislatures determine the methods of choosing a Senator any more than it does when they make any other election law, so long as the people of the state are free to cast their votes accordingly and elect two Senators through those methods.
I’m not saying it does, but since the COTUS specifies that a direct popular election must take place and that Congress has set the date, about the only authority the States have over those elections is to set the locations of the polling places.
I don’t want to help spread the myth that Britain doesn’t have a Consitution, despite what I said above, because we do, just not in the same way that you have one.
Poosh lied? I almost died!
Poosh,
Have they passed that new Central London driving tax yet? The one that charges you a premium for driving in certain parts of the city?
I was last in London in January when they raised the toll on the Underground and bus system.
I rode one of the double deckers with the open backs probably for the last time in my life.
OT: When did the Mississippi Burning trial start? The prosecution rested a bit ago. It seems like it was pretty quick.
Elections can vary in form and style, but the function - allowing the individual to cast a secret ballot in favor of one candidate or another - remains unchanged.
Which is also how it works under any variation on the at-large system.
The fact is that it is a vote of “the people”, rather than their State representatives, who elect the Senators.
As it is under any variation on the at-large system.
First, there is only one State that has a unicameral Legislature - Nebraska. But no one is defining “republican form of government” as “bicameral legislature”. “Republican”, in that case, meaning “a state or country that is led by people that don’t base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country”.
There could be 25 such states, and they could elect an Executive Tribunal wherein 3 co-Governors vote on all executive decisions. They could entitle themselves “People’s Emperors of the Bottle Caps”. It would still fit under the broad scope of the term “republican form of government”.
So why is it impossible for you to consider that the phrase “elected by the people thereof” might, possibly, maybe, be equally open to interpretation by state governments, so long as the people vote in elections to resolve the question?
...so doesn’t it reason that that power, which is never clearly defined in the Constitution, defaults to the states?The whole idea behind the Constitution was that the closer they are to home, the more power people have
But if they wanted to let the Legislatures choose who the Senator was going to be, why bother with the 17th Amendment to begin with?
Who said anything in the world about legislatures choosing senators? We’re talking about various methods of allowing the people to elect their senators.
As an aside, you earlier brought up that the Constitution does specifically mention the existence of Congressional districts. Yet you neglect to note that prior to 1966, *many* states had at large Congressmen.
Why? Because...
“The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators, and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, exceept as to the Places of choosing Senators.”
That’s why. The states can whip up whatever crazy crap they want, but no one alleges that allowing the state legislature to regulate an election means that the people aren’t being allowed to elect the official,no more than it does when the federal government is involved.
I can’t imagine that the phrase “by the people thereof” means a direct general election by the entire state any more than Article I, Section 2’s “by the people of the several states” means that a Congressman must be elected by a direct general election *by the entire country*.
I’m not saying it does, but since the COTUS specifies that a direct popular election must take place…
Where does it say this?!
Hey, when did the Conservative T-Shirts group decide to start using attractive models? I’ve been away too long.
Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 06/17 at 11:28 AM
Mark my words: When the next great war comes, France will be on the other side. If you don’t believe that, just bear in mind that Japan and Italy were both on our side in World War I. Just a few decades later we had to nuke one and overrun the other.
I think that’s a little harsh, Aaron. In all fairness, if push came to shove and a big war did break out, I think France would ultimately side with us, keep quite, and let us save their ass, once again, like the little pussies that they are.
Next entry: Live From Hollywood
Previous entry: At All Costs
A story from Drudge says a new poll shows 65% of Americans dislike the French. Let’s get that number up people. I can’t see how 35% would still have any trust in these guys whatsoever. They’re like that prick at happy hour that will sit and drink, and when it’s their turn to buy a round, they runoff, and then call you an asshole to add insult to injury as they’re walking out the door. They are worthless.