Posted on 12/17/2008 10:05:48 AM PST by autumnraine
Spoken like a true patriot!
Pray tell, WHAT’S “SYMBOLIC” about attempting to hold these clowns to the CONSTITUTION — even after-the-fact?
Gee, you really shouldn’t make self-denegrating comments about yourself — even if correct.
Bad for the old self-esteem.
Maybe because we have a responsibility passed on to us from the Founding Fathers to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. I wonder how many people thought the Founding Fathers (and Mothers!) were kooks? We might be in very good company!
That said, if by “wild goose chase” you mean that we will be outnumbered and overridden by the ‘rat media and congress, then I agree you may be right, but that does not mean we should roll over without some sort of stand.
I've been reading through these BC/COLB threads for months now, it took having another FReeper explain the difference between fact and truth re: the role of the Supreme Court, to assist in my understanding of why these cases are not being taken by the SC. As you note, even if Linder and a GOP Senator lodge an objection, said objection, challenge WILL be overridden by majority vote in both Houses. This one goes nowhere, regardless the important point of upholding the minimum in the Constitution.
Legislation to describe the procedure for qualifying candidates for federal office is necessary in order to keep this situation from becoming an issue in the future. Either Congress passes it, (Dem majority? Ho ho, don't make me laugh) or the states' legislatures do, but we are to the point that this must be done in order to keep the question from being raised again. It should have been accomplished when the question of Chester A. Arthur's qualifications was raised -- I had no idea that had occurred in the past, (nice omission by my American History/Government teachers) and if enough citizens had made a fuss back then in order to get the procedure set in stone, we would not be here with this today.
The symbolism occurs in that one GOP Rep and one GOP Senator would be making an objection WHICH WILL BE OVERRIDDEN BY A MAJORITY AND THEY BOTH KNOW IT. I'm not saying they ought not do it, I'm saying that it will make not one jot of difference but to have a notation in the record of proceedings.
No one is being held to anything by this, in the same way that passing a non-binding resolution has no effect whatever, but to place information in the Congressional Record.
Understand and agree that you are correct.
But it WILL at least be in the record that SOMEONE stood and TRIED to do the RIGHT THING.
The majority has usually been wrong throughout history.
In a few days we celebrate the birth of man who — by a vote of those present — was offered his freedom at the end of his life. And while I can argue that it was God’s plan that he not be freed, the mob freed Barabas!
No matter that Linder will probably be portrayed as some kind of conspiracy kook, I will grant that it takes guts to actually stand up and make the objection -- I appreciate the effort.
so does this mean they all have to be from California, since those are the EV that need to be in question? So in other words, a repbulican state that carried Bush would not matter if they objected to California EV?
Amen and amen!
We have just had a PC coup d'etat !
“...so does this mean they all have to be from California, since those are the EV that need to be in question?”
No, and I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused if I suggested that.
An Objection can be (and has been) presented at the joint session of Congress by a team consisting of one senator and one representative (i.e., someone from each chamber). Although it appears one team member has been from the state whose votes are being objected to.
In my opinion, voters should contact their state politicians (by fax or email) using the voter’s local address to alert the politician their voting base is at risk.
There are two stages, however. The first, to encourage the Objection and the second, to encourage the dems to do the right thing when each chamber withdraws to deliberate and vote on the objection. Obviously, the second stage depends on whether O’s representatives produce credible birth documents or whether the Republicans have produced credible evidence of birth in Kenya.
Thus, voters would do well to fax or email all Democrats in office as of Jan 3.
Just funny that way, wanting to see what is sooo important on a $20 B.C. that O-bam dropped $800,000.00 hiding it.
But we appreciate you looking out for us.
I don’t hold much confidence in getting justice on this issue from Congress. It’ll be put up to a vote and there’s a heckuva lot more democrats who don’t care about the constitution than there are constitutionalist republicans.
My last shred of hope during this phase of what the 20th amendment calls “if the president elect shall have failed to qualify” is on the Supreme Court, who gets paid to uphold the constitution and will be voting themselves into irrelevance & oblivion if they don’t do their FReeping jobs.
“My last shred of hope...is on the Supreme Court...”
You may be correct depending upon the quality of any evidence presented in support of an objection, or if O’s reps do not provide any evidence.
Importantly, the quality of evidence or lack of evidence may shame some or all of the Clinton Dems into sustaining an objection. As a practical matter, if the evidence is there or not there and a Dem doesn’t vote to sustain, they risk being on the evil side of the newly elected Pres Hillary.
John Linder rocks! Along with Neal Boortz, they wrote The Fair Tax book. I saw John at one of Saxby Chambliss’ campaign rallies in November. Great guy, I’m going to thank him as well!
Thanks, then I will call Kay Baily Hutchins and John Cornyn, 1st thing in the morning. I got their little phone numbers all ready and I will see what they have to say.
Thanks, then I will call Kay Baily Hutchins and John Cornyn, 1st thing in the morning. I got their little phone numbers all ready and I will see what they have to say.
Thanks - I saw that AFTER I posted.
Thank you Lucy for the ping.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2002
Update: Just received word of the following:
[Former Congressman] JD [Hayworth (R-AZ)] said he called Rep. Linder today, as he is a friend of his. Linder DENIED that he is going to object, so that is a total rumor. JD Hayworth is a reputable source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.