Constitutional crisis
 

John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:37:00 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.
Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding
what the Constitution says?


[Note: this reply is not cross posted.]

It's like religion. Some folks believe in a strict, word by word
interpretation of the bible, some use it as a guide while making their own
rules.

Conservatives like to stick with what the constitution actually says,
liberals like to make their own laws picking and choosing the
'constitutional' words they will use.


Conservatives like to *say* they are sticking with what the Constitution
says, but the reality is, as evidenced by the last eight years of the
Bush Administration, that they "interpret" or simply ignore the document
as it suits their purposes.

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

hk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:37:00 -0700, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote.
Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The
constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a
new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who
would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new
pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.
Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions
regarding what the Constitution says?

[Note: this reply is not cross posted.]

It's like religion. Some folks believe in a strict, word by word
interpretation of the bible, some use it as a guide while making their
own
rules.

Conservatives like to stick with what the constitution actually says,
liberals like to make their own laws picking and choosing the
'constitutional' words they will use.


Conservatives like to *say* they are sticking with what the Constitution
says, but the reality is, as evidenced by the last eight years of the
Bush Administration, that they "interpret" or simply ignore the document
as it suits their purposes.


Forgot to put OT in the subject header... :)

Constitutional crisis
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.

Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding
what the Constitution says?


Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about
pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately
misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation
leads to arguments from the prosecution.

Andrew Swallow

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote.
Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The
constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who
would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.

Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions
regarding what the Constitution says?

Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about
pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately
misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation
leads to arguments from the prosecution.

Andrew Swallow




I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any
of the sorts of firearms around these days?

Constitutional crisis
 

On Sep 9, 2:37*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

. ..





wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. *Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. *Who would become president? *The constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? *Would the Dems insist on a new
election? *If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b
president in the interim? *Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. *The Dems go crazy. *A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. *Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. *Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. *Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.

Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.

Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding
what the Constitution says?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, see the thread titled "So, who is in? " Please?

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

Constitutional crisis
 

Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote.
Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The
constitution is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who
would b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.

Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions
regarding what the Constitution says?

Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about
pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately
misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation
leads to arguments from the prosecution.

Andrew Swallow

ahem

Where is the Pornography exception found?

exactly how do you "know" "The writers of the first amendment were *not*
talking about pornographic DVDs."

Vince

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Andrew Swallow wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote:
wrote:
Assume the following situation:
McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote.
Late
in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not
able to take office. Who would become president? The constitution
is
not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a
new
election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would
b
president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader?
Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new
pres
and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to
bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or
two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in
these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat
Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen
this easily?
You really need to read the Constitution.
Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not
read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old.

Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty
straightforward.

Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions
regarding what the Constitution says?

Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about
pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately
misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation
leads to arguments from the prosecution.

Andrew Swallow




I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of
the sorts of firearms around these days?


They would of allowed those arms also. The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

They would of allowed those arms also. *The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Bill, check out this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...34881f48773a0#
It will explain a lot of what is going on here today, and why...
It would be great to have you on board... Most everybody else is...;)

OT- OT- Constitutional crisis
 

wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
They would of allowed those arms also. The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Bill, check out this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...34881f48773a0#
It will explain a lot of what is going on here today, and why...
It would be great to have you on board... Most everybody else is...;)