The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: rangerrebew on November 14, 2017, 05:30:50 pm
-
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
-
Damned right they do and Washington can go straight to hell!
-
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 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 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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").
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
: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?)
-
@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!
-
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. ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
It's a lot more moral than Dubya's ill-managed wars that has started the eradication of Christianity in the Middle East.
-
I sailed wrote:
"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."
No, you are wrong about this, and once more I'll post why.
It goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court Case in 1969 involving Adam Clayton Powell.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack
To wit:
The House or Senate CANNOT REFUSE to seat a duly-elected representative or senator.
Once seated, that person can be expelled with a 2/3 vote, but only after first having been seated in Congress.
If Alabama elects Judge Moore, he WILL be seated into the Senate.
ONLY THEN can the Senate move to "expel" him, and only with a two-thirds vote.
My prediction, however, is if they try this, things are not going to go as predicted or expected...
-
@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.
Long distance is the next best thing to being there. Get good optics.
Become proficient, long distance. Quality, not quantity...and read SunTsu.
Sometimes I think the Communists are waiting for us to die off or just get too old.
-
The key to all this is the Alabama Republican Party. Alabama voters aren't being asked to directly elect Roy Moore to the Senate. They are being asked to elect the nominee of the Republican Party of Alabama to the Senate. The Alabama GOP is a private organization, that can choose to rescind its nomination on the basis of its view that a creep harms its reputation.
This is all acknowledged by the Secretary of State of Alabama, who said yesterday that if the Alabama GOP withdraws its support for its nominee, and Moore still wins, the election will be declared null and void. The implication is that if Moore were to drop out, and still win, the election would similarly be declared null and void.
Fast action is required, because if either of these scenarios can be effected, pressure can be brought to bear on the Governor of Alabama to support postponing the special election so the GOP can run a new nominee (maybe even Jeff Sessions himself).
-
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.
No, they won’t. That sounds like a liberal whinging that Trump should be impeached because he met with Russians during the campaign.
-
No, they won’t. That sounds like a liberal whinging that Trump should be impeached because he met with Russians during the campaign.
Not sure I agree. Liberals whine about Trump suggesting the Russian thing requires a do-over. No - the people have spoken to elect the duly-nominated candidate of the Republican Party.
Similarly, if Alabama voters elect the duly-nominated candidate of the Republican Party, then IMO their sovereignty must be respected and the nominee seated. The way out is for Alabama Republican party to rescind its nomination, thereby pressuring the Governor to postpone the special election.
-
No, they won’t. That sounds like a liberal whinging that Trump should be impeached because he met with Russians during the campaign.
If he is elected, they have to seat him. They can kick him out after they seat him, but they can't kick him out beforehand.
I don't see what that possibly has to do with liberals (except the ones calling for circumventing the Constitution), or Trump, or Russia, for that matter.
-
I sailed wrote:
"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."
No, you are wrong about this, and once more I'll post why.
It goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court Case in 1969 involving Adam Clayton Powell.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack
To wit:
The House or Senate CANNOT REFUSE to seat a duly-elected representative or senator.
Once seated, that person can be expelled with a 2/3 vote, but only after first having been seated in Congress.
If Alabama elects Judge Moore, he WILL be seated into the Senate.
ONLY THEN can the Senate move to "expel" him, and only with a two-thirds vote.
My prediction, however, is if they try this, things are not going to go as predicted or expected...
You are correct on the seating. I should have said expelled from the body.
My main point was the irony that voters elect, but voters cannot remove.
-
You are correct on the seating. I should have said expelled from the body.
My main point was the irony that voters elect, but voters cannot remove.
That's what happens in a Representative Republic.
-
That's what happens in a Representative Republic.
I think it might be more representative if the right to recall Congresspersons was retained by the people. --actually, if you want that Republic to function as designed, repeal the 17th Amendment, and the People would retain the right to recall Representatives; the State Legislatures would retain the right to recall Senators (because the State Legislatures would elect them).
-
I think it might be more representative if the right to recall Congresspersons was retained by the people. --actually, if you want that Republic to function as designed, repeal the 17th Amendment, and the People would retain the right to recall Representatives the State Legislatures would retain the right to recall Senators (because the State Legislatures would elect them).
The would destroy the foundational rock that has established the push for a pure Democracy here, so forget it - that's not gonna happen.
-
The would destroy the foundational rock that has established the push for a pure Democracy here, so forget it - that's not gonna happen.
Oh, Democracy! Two wolves and a lamb, voting on the dinner menu.
-
That's what happens in a Representative Republic.
In my mind it is not. Why should voters have the right to approve but give up the right to disapprove of a Senator once he is in office?
Exactly how do you define a Representative Republic?
-
Exactly how do you define a Representative Republic?
Isn't that where people get together and elect the guy they want the most of the ones the parties would back, the one who will give them the most stuff for freeeee!, and then they get in office and don't do what they said they would (except some of the freeee! stuff), and blame everyone else for not giving the people who elected them all the freeee! stuff they promised, (which is why they need to be reelected so they can 'give them the rest' sometime during a long and lucrative career of selling the country down the river into bondage)?
:shrug:
-
Isn't that where people get together and elect the guy they want the most of the ones the parties would back, the one who will give them the most stuff for freeeee!, and then they get in office and don't do what they said they would (except some of the freeee! stuff), and blame everyone else for not giving the people who elected them all the freeee! stuff they promised, (which is why they need to be reelected so they can 'give them the rest' sometime during a long and lucrative career of selling the country down the river into bondage)?
:shrug:
i sure wish it were not so.
-
I think it might be more representative if the right to recall Congresspersons was retained by the people. --actually, if you want that Republic to function as designed, repeal the 17th Amendment, and the People would retain the right to recall Representatives; the State Legislatures would retain the right to recall Senators (because the State Legislatures would elect them).
Putting aside the mistake of the 17th, I think what we have (had) is about right. We only elect House members for two years. That's a short enough time that they can't get away with too much before they have to stand for re-election, which is close to an equivalent of recall without us having to deal with the nearly constant recall movements that I believe would be inevitable if available. The nature of the Senate, IMO, lends itself to a longer term.
To me, recall smacks too close to democracy, while relatively short terms w/o recall is representation with the acceptance that that sometimes you're not going to like what your "representatives" do (or don't in this case).
The interesting question, IMO, is should the determination (recall vs not) be made at the federal or state level, and should it be the same for both houses (assuming we gut the 17th).
-
Putting aside the mistake of the 17th, I think what we have (had) is about right. We only elect House members for two years. That's a short enough time that they can't get away with too much before they have to stand for re-election, which is close to an equivalent of recall without us having to deal with the nearly constant recall movements that I believe would be inevitable if available. The nature of the Senate, IMO, lends itself to a longer term.
To me, recall smacks too close to democracy, while relatively short terms w/o recall is representation with the acceptance that that sometimes you're not going to like what your "representatives" do (or don't in this case).
The interesting question, IMO, is should the determination (recall vs not) be made at the federal or state level, and should it be the same for both houses (assuming we gut the 17th).
I would make the ability to conduct a recall available to the states, to be either statutorily permitted or not at the discretion of the State. Consider the recall is the ultimate voter veto, the State Legislature would vote to recall the Senate, should they have cause, and the voters a Representative. That way the office holder would be beholden to the people who elected them in the event of misfeasance or nonfeasance or high crimes or misdemeanors while in office.
That presumes repeal of the 17th, of course.
-
When all else fails... I just think of myself as a fifth generation POW.
-
When all else fails... I just think of myself as a fifth generation POW.
You're a strange bird, Kings. Sometimes I wanna throttle you, but some times I just wanna hug you.... :shrug:
-
You're a strange bird, Kings. Sometimes I wanna throttle you, but some times I just wanna hug you.... :shrug:
lol
Why are you so emotional ?
-
lol
Why are you so emotional ?
What can I say? It's my nature...I think it's the sugar rush from the donuts.