Author Topic: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO  (Read 532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 73,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO

November 14, 2017| by Donn Marten

With the war on Roy Moore raging on, an underlying subtext has been largely ignored and it is one that has serious ramifications for the democratic system itself.

That is do the people of Alabama have the right to elect their own representatives? For that matter, does any American have that right anymore?

https://downtrend.com/donn-marten/do-alabama-voters-have-a-right-to-elect-who-they-please-washington-says-no
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Damned right they do and Washington can go straight to hell!

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
It would be one thing if Moore was running for state office; say, Alabama's state senate or
assembly, or even governor. That would be Alabama's sole business---and, if Moore is indeed
guilty of what he's accused of having done, Alabama's sole shame.

But Moore is running for the U.S. Senate, which has a far more direct impact upon the nation
than running for his state's senate or assembly or statehouse. That is very much the business
of Americans who don't live in Alabama, as it would be regarding such a candidate running for
the Senate from, say, New York, or Pennsylvania, or California, or Mississippi, or Texas, or
the Carolinas, or the Pacific Northwest, or California.

It's one thing for a member of either house of Congress to commit the sort of act Moore is
accused of having done after they've been elected to Capitol Hill with no known such
act attached to them previously; it's something else entirely for a member of either house
in Congress to have been sent there despite his or her home state's having known they
committed such acts or were accused of having done so before they stood for election to
that office
.

The nation is not Washington alone, and Washington alone isn't calling for Moore to back
away from the race if he's guilty as accused. The nation is not the Republican or Democratic
parties alone, and Republicans and Democrats alone aren't calling for him to back away
from the race if he's guilty as accused.

We once thought it was a disgrace to have elected a president known before taking his
oath of office to have been somewhat of a serial adulterer. There were enough of us last
year who thought it was a disgrace to elect a president caught on tape believing he could
grab women by (a five-letter feline euphemism for a woman's vagina) at will. Why should
it be less disgraceful for a state to send to the U.S. Senate a man who proves to have
sexually assaulted a fourteen-year-old girl when he was in his thirties?

Or would we have been quicker to want Moore---if he is guilty of such a sexual
assault---run out of town and to the nearest hoosegow if he were a Senate candidate
from New York or California?

Which reminds me that, as we have been reminded by a large enough number of
commentators, the presumption of innocence applies legally to a court of law. Until or
unless the Moore question goes to court, if it does, anyone can say anything they damn
well please about any facet of it, for better or worse.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 02:31:23 PM by EasyAce »

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,165
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
The irony of all of this is yes, the voters of Alabama have every right to elect who they wish; however, the Senate does not have to seat that person nor do the voters have a right to remove one from office once he gets there.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,534
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
The irony of all of this is yes, the voters of Alabama have every right to elect who they wish; however, the Senate does not have to seat that person nor do the voters have a right to remove one from office once he gets there.
The Senate can expel someone who is of such low character they cannot allow them to be associated with that august body of liars, con artists, thieves, grifters, and yes, sexual predators.
They didn't kick Barney Frank out for running a whorehouse for homosexuals out of his 'congressional home' at a time when, yes, there was 'something wrong with that'.

They haven't voted anyone out since 1862, and that includes numerous other such such notables as Huey Long.

In the interest of complete disclosure, some of those resigned before they could be given the boot. After all, even criminals have some standards.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
The irony of all of this is yes, the voters of Alabama have every right to elect who they wish; however, the Senate does not have to seat that person nor do the voters have a right to remove one from office once he gets there.

If Roy Moore is elected and the senate refuses to seat him they will open up a can of whup ass the likes of which no one has ever seen!

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,931
    • Sword At The Ready
The Senate can expel someone who is of such low character they cannot allow them to be associated with that august body of liars, con artists, thieves, grifters, and yes, sexual predators.
They didn't kick Barney Frank out for running a whorehouse for homosexuals out of his 'congressional home' at a time when, yes, there was 'something wrong with that'.

They haven't voted anyone out since 1862, and that includes numerous other such such notables as Huey Long.

In the interest of complete disclosure, some of those resigned before they could be given the boot. After all, even criminals have some standards.

It's a new era Joe, and the Oligarchy is playing for keeps and will not permit another Tea Party/Trump type upset from their corruption from happening again.

It's why the GOP changed the rules twice in the last two elections to ensure no grassroots Conservatives can mount a takeover of the party from within, and why they will now make the rules themselves, outside of the convention and outside of public eyes.

Mordor on the Potomac thinks they can and will tell us little people who needs to rule us, and Bob Corker let that little truth slip out of his yaw the other day by stating that the voters in Alabama voting for Moore over Strange was a "Bridge too far".


I will state for the record - I think we are well past the point of being able to restrain or stop tyranny via civil means in this country.

All that remains is how much this people are willing to put up with before they decide enough is enough.

But by then it may be too late to do a damn thing about where we are headed.
“Fart for freedom, fart for liberty—and fart proudly.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  - Alexander Hamilton

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,534
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
If Roy Moore is elected and the senate refuses to seat him they will open up a can of whup ass the likes of which no one has ever seen!
They will be in violation of the Constitution of the United States, refusing the People of the State of Alabama their duly elected representation in the Senate.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
They will be in violation of the Constitution of the United States . . .
Actually, no, they won't.

Article I, Section 5, part 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The member's
home constituents can scream blue murder (as happened in 1967, when the House refused to seat
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. while he faced corruption charges), but either the Senate or the House is
allowed to do it constitutionally.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 07:21:36 PM by EasyAce »

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Actually, no, they won't.

Article I, Section 5, part 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The member's
home constituents can scream blue murder (as happened in 1967, when the House refused to seat
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. while he faced corruption charges), but either the Senate or the House is
allowed to do it constitutionally.

That does not give them the right to overturn an election just because THEY don't like the result!
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:03:54 PM by Bigun »

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,534
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2017, 07:39:53 PM »
Actually, no, they won't.

Article I, Section 5, part 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members
for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The member's
home constituents can scream blue murder (as happened in 1967, when the House refused to seat
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. while he faced corruption charges), but either the Senate or the House is
allowed to do it constitutionally.
No taxation without representation!

Where have I heard that before?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,534
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2017, 07:40:54 PM »
That does not give them the right to overturn an election just because THEY don't like tge result!
Crap, it that was the case I vote we throw the whole bloody lot out and start over Especially the ones from California and the Northeast.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2017, 07:42:19 PM »
That does not give them the right to overturn an election just because THEY don't like tge result!
Expelling a member isn't quite the same thing as overturning an election. (For that
matter, neither is impeachment; you may remember Droopy Drawers Clinton's sycophancy
trying to argue that impeaching him equaled an attempt to a) overturn an election, and b)
foist on the people a man they didn't elect to be president, the Constitution be damned.)
The Constitution does not say, Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel
a Member, except in cases where they don't like the election results in the Member's home
district or home state's choice
. (That last is a reminder that state legislatures and not the
general voting public elected Senators until the 20th Century, gang.)

Funny thing---nobody except Adam Clayton Powell's direct constituents (and maybe a few
bat-headed liberal commentators) objected when the House voted by practically 3-to-1 not to
seat and ultimately expel him in early 1967 for facing accusations (and a couple of formal legal
charges) far less grave than the accusations Mr. Moore faces. Powell was merely and exponentially
corrupt, not a suspected or accused child molester.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 07:43:10 PM by EasyAce »

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,467
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2017, 07:48:51 PM »
That does not give them the right to overturn an election just because THEY don't like tge result!

Not the moral right, but it does give them the legal right.

Not saying it's a good thing, but they do have that right.

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,467
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2017, 07:54:21 PM »
Crap, it that was the case I vote we throw the whole bloody lot out and start over Especially the ones from California and the Northeast.

You know, we get rid of the 17th and more than 2/3 of the Senate would be appointed by Republican led states.  They could then vote out all the Dems.

And then they'd do exactly what they're doing now, nothing (for $174,000/year, plus "tips").

Offline musiclady

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,045
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2017, 07:57:51 PM »
It would be one thing if Moore was running for state office; say, Alabama's state senate or
assembly, or even governor. That would be Alabama's sole business---and, if Moore is indeed
guilty of what he's accused of having done, Alabama's sole shame.

But Moore is running for the U.S. Senate, which has a far more direct impact upon the nation
than running for his state's senate or assembly or statehouse. That is very much the business
of Americans who don't live in Alabama, as it would be regarding such a candidate running for
the Senate from, say, New York, or Pennsylvania, or California, or Mississippi, or Texas, or
the Carolinas, or the Pacific Northwest, or California.

It's one thing for a member of either house of Congress to commit the sort of act Moore is
accused of having done after they've been elected to Capitol Hill with no known such
act attached to them previously; it's something else entirely for a member of either house
in Congress to have been sent there despite his or her home state's having known they
committed such acts or were accused of having done so before they stood for election to
that office
.

The nation is not Washington alone, and Washington alone isn't calling for Moore to back
away from the race if he's guilty as accused. The nation is not the Republican or Democratic
parties alone, and Republicans and Democrats alone aren't calling for him to back away
from the race if he's guilty as accused.

We once thought it was a disgrace to have elected a president known before taking his
oath of office to have been somewhat of a serial adulterer. There were enough of us last
year who thought it was a disgrace to elect a president caught on tape believing he could
grab women by (a five-letter feline euphemism for a woman's vagina) at will. Why should
it be less disgraceful for a state to send to the U.S. Senate a man who proves to have
sexually assaulted a fourteen-year-old girl when he was in his thirties?


Or would we have been quicker to want Moore---if he is guilty of such a sexual
assault---run out of town and to the nearest hoosegow if he were a Senate candidate
from New York or California?

Which reminds me that, as we have been reminded by a large enough number of
commentators, the presumption of innocence applies legally to a court of law. Until or
unless the Moore question goes to court, if it does, anyone can say anything they damn
well please about any facet of it, for better or worse.

The problem is that too many on "our side" decided to completely disregard what we had always held as a standard for Presidential nominees, when they decided that it didn't matter that "our" nominee bragged about his own perversion and sexual predation.

We have lost all moral ground, and I see no way forward to gain it back.
Character still matters.  It always matters.

May 3, 2016 - the day the Republican party left ME.  I am now without a Party, and quite possibly without a country.  May God have mercy!

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,534
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2017, 07:59:29 PM »
Not the moral right, but it does give them the legal right.

Not saying it's a good thing, but they do have that right.
You can't expel someone you don't  seat.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2017, 08:05:49 PM »
Crap, it that was the case I vote we throw the whole bloody lot out and start over Especially the ones from California and the Northeast.

 :amen: Joe!  At that moment this republic is offically dead and buried!

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2017, 08:13:38 PM »
:amen: Joe!  At that moment this republic is offically dead and buried!
@Bigun
You're about 114 years too late for the funeral. (Sixteenth Amendment, anyone?)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:16:33 PM by EasyAce »

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2017, 08:16:07 PM »
@Bigun
You're about 114 too late for the funeral. (Sixteenth Amendment, anyone?)

That was indeed a mortal blow but it does not mandate that we have a Marxist income tax.  Only allows it and we can still get rid of it!

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2017, 08:17:07 PM »
That was indeed a mortal blow but it does not mandate that we have a Marxist income tax.
Mandate, no, but it left enough wiggle room for ten strippers without bumping against the sides. ;)

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2017, 08:21:57 PM »
Mandate, no, but it left enough wiggle room for ten strippers without bumping against the sides. ;)

Have you looked at my avitar or read the stuff at the link in my tag line?

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,769
  • I'll play the blues for you . . .
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2017, 08:28:49 PM »
Have you looked at my avitar or read the stuff at the link in my tag line?
I read Frank Chodorov for the first time in the 1980s, when a friend gave me his posthumous
anthology Fugitive Essays, and another friend gave me a small collection of his legendary
broadsheet analysis. They both knew of my admiration for Albert Jay Nock, whose protege
Chodorov had been, and figured that if I liked Nock (and I still do), I'd enjoy Chodorov. And
they were right! I've read all Chodorov's and Nock's books and they are never far from my
re-reading list. They were two of the most eloquent anti-Statists I've ever read, and to this
day I sit in awe of their erudition.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2017, 08:32:52 PM »
I read Frank Chodorov for the first time in the 1980s, when a friend gave me his posthumous
anthology Fugitive Essays, and another friend gave me a small collection of his legendary
broadsheet analysis. They both knew of my admiration for Albert Jay Nock, whose protege
Chodorov had been, and figured that if I liked Nock (and I still do), I'd enjoy Chodorov. And
they were right! I've read all Chodorov's and Nock's books and they are never far from my
re-reading list. They were two of the most eloquent anti-Statists I've ever read, and to this
day I sit in awe of their erudition.

 :amen:  could not agree any more!   :beer:

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 24,461
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Do Alabama Voters Have a Right to Elect Who They Please? Washington Says NO
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2017, 08:39:29 PM »
It's a new era Joe, and the Oligarchy is playing for keeps and will not permit another Tea Party/Trump type upset from their corruption from happening again.

It's why the GOP changed the rules twice in the last two elections to ensure no grassroots Conservatives can mount a takeover of the party from within, and why they will now make the rules themselves, outside of the convention and outside of public eyes.

Mordor on the Potomac thinks they can and will tell us little people who needs to rule us, and Bob Corker let that little truth slip out of his yaw the other day by stating that the voters in Alabama voting for Moore over Strange was a "Bridge too far".


I will state for the record - I think we are well past the point of being able to restrain or stop tyranny via civil means in this country.

All that remains is how much this people are willing to put up with before they decide enough is enough.

But by then it may be too late to do a damn thing about where we are headed.


@INVAR

I'm coming more to that conclusion with every passing day but and I'm to damned old now to be much of a factor in the the end.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:40:54 PM by Bigun »


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf