Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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... :) |
#13
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
OT- Constitutional crisis
|
#17
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Canada's health care crisis | General | |||
Mid life kneeling crisis | General | |||
Canada's Health Care Crisis - update | General | |||
OT--Sleazy politics...Dems caught TRYING TO EXTEND budget crisis | General |