|
From: "Thomas H"
To: <webmistress@gorewon2000.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:00 AM
Subject: the supreme court & my car
To whom can answer,
I can't believe this never occurred to me before but, and correct me if I am wrong... There are only individual state election processes and no Federal, correct? If so, there was no conflict between federal and state processes in the Florida fall follies. So my question is, is it standard supreme court practice to interpret state constitutions and state law and processes when there is no conflict with federal? How much legitimacy can the ruling be given by supreme court precedent?
I now have on top my car two 4'X4' sheets of plywood; on one it says, "Foreign Tourist, The People's America has been Stolen-Please send the UN." the other side says "The 4th of July is a Lie Bring back Democracy"
People ask what they mean, I explain and most agree. Of course I have to also put up with the idiots that speak in shouts or finger waves from the safety of their speeding car. They are few compared to the thumbs up. I am beginning to believe that the people aren't as sedate as I thought. Although it seems it has taken me and my car to stir them.
Looking for democracy,
Sincerely,
Thomas Mark H.
From: "The Diva (Tammy)"
To: "Thomas H"
Dear Thomas:
First, let me say right off the bat, you are a man after my own heart! I am a big believer in creative protest, and your car is a prime example of that glorious and proud tradition. Keep up the good work. It is urgently needed.
Second, you are exactly right to question (rhetorically) whether or not the Filthy Five did a sharp 180 in order to position themselves to steal the election. The Extreme Court, which bases most of its kinky rulings in a dead Constitution (original intent, only), used Article II, Section 1, to support their assertion that the Florida Supreme Court should not have weighed in on the matter of conflicting Florida State law (which is, of course, completely insane). A closer "original intent" look at the relevant clause, however, will point out the folly of using this particular constitutional passage to try to prop up such a transparent lie:
Article. II. Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Filthy Five of The Extreme Court, by injecting themselves into the Presidential Election of 2000, and by leaning on a disingenuous argument revolving around this particular clause in order to kill the vote count, made themselves de facto presidential (s)electors, which is specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution, when read through the narrow prism of the Filthy Five's beloved "original intent." Thus they violated the very same test that they were at that time claiming the Florida Supreme Court had violated (which it had not, since the Florida Constitution vests in the state's highest appellate court the right interpret the correct application of conflicting state statutes.)
You also questioned whether or not this was Standard Operating Procedure, for the Extreme Court, "to interpret state constitutions and state law and processes when there is no conflict with federal?"
The answer is "No, it is not S.O.P. at all."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out this very same thing to Bush's lawyers (who went about putting on a nice "dog-and-pony," or rather, "elephant-and-snake" show for the American public, in their arguments before the Extreme Court Justices, who had already decided amongst themselves to steal the election), "I do not know of any case where we have impugned a state supreme court the way you are doing in this case... They may have been wrong; we may have interpreted it differently, but we are not the arbiters -- they are."
In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg pointed out the Extreme Court's sharp 180, saying, "[n]ot uncommonly, we let stand state-court interpretations of federal law with which we might disagree."
You are right on the money, Thomas. Keep writing, and keep fighting...
Tammy "The Diva"
http://www.coup2k.com
WHAT IS A LIE?
On Mom, Sammon and Values, By James Higdon
From: "James B. Higdon"
To: <thediva@coup2k.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: What is a lie?
Diva:
Mr. Sommerby, I think, lets Bill Sammon off the hook. Sommerby claims that Sammon never actually lies, he just leaves out important facts.
From my own history, I remember once when I was about 11 years old, and cut school for a day to hang out with a friend. I met the friend at the school in the morning, and we left from there to enjoy our day. That evening, my mother said, "Your sister tells me she didn't see you at school today--did you go?" I replied, "Yes, I went to school."
Now, by Bob Sommerby's standard this is not technically a lie, but my mother disagrees. When the school reported my unexcused absence, my mother punished me for lying. I tried to explain that I didn't lie, because I did go to school as she had asked, I just didn't stay there. My mother explained to me that leaving out facts, with the intention of misleading someone, is lying whether or not one's statement is "technically correct."
My question to you, Diva: Is what Mrs. Sammon apparently taught her son about lying a reflection of Republican "family values?"
Jim H.
[DIVA NOTE: Don't you just love James Higdon? Make sure to visit Online Journal regularly for more of his excellent writings...]
NEXT: ALERT: NO JUSTICE? NO JUSTICES!
|
|
