Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"No person shall hold an elected office under the Constitution of the United States which has been held by a parent, sibling, spouse, or child of that person."
I'm sure that constitutional scholars could find fault with the exact wording, and I'm fine with drafting corrections. But this needs to be adopted.
The term "an elected office" would refer to any position established under the Constitution, President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives and would exist in reference to a specific "electorate".
So, if I were elected to the 2nd District of Georgia, my wife, my children, and my parents could never hold that seat, but could hold the 1st or 3rd District seat, since they are elected by a different electorate. However, since both Senate seats apportioned to a given state are elected by the same electorate, they would be considered interchangeable.
The same is true of the President and Vice-President; they are both elected by the entire electorate of the country.
A post or three (no count) of my most heartfelt,
and learned experiences, lessons, got dumped.
That's okay. I been at a chatter 'box-caffe' okay.
R. Keyes-When we write of the topic that 'touch'
and feel deeply * Language is usually very sparse.
It should be spare, direct. People practice silence.
Thomas Hardy (wise) has 'stuff' about being quiet.
my bolder parts can be overwhelming.
Just ask Jebbie, who always blames them for everything. Well, everything except what he blames on e_prof.
"In short, it is because many of the blacks and hispanics who voted for Mr Obama voted against the gay marriage proposals and many hunters who voted for Mr Obama are very much opposed to gun control, and, well, etc. If you consider the 46% who voted against Obama and add in those who voted for him but hold conservative views on gay marriage, abortion, gun control, the military, taxes, etc., you almost certainly arrive at a figure of well over 50% (a majority) who are basically conservative . . . Perhaps when liberals start identifying themselves in public as such (as we conservatives do) rather than hide behind the moderate or independent label, there will be evidence that that American people are not, basically, conservative."
Interesting analysis. But I think your drawing the wrong conclusion. Once you factor out the hearty lunatic fringe of 28%-33% that clings irrationally to the four pillars of conservative thought (guns, god, military and taxes . . . you forgot the fifth illegal immigration) what you have is a moderately liberal country that finally realized how idiotic a 5 issue political worldview is and wants to see America return to its liberal pragmatic senses.
And by the way not that there is anything wrong with being liberal but the more appropriate label would likely be progressive meaning those who support sane humane workable cost effective foreign, economic, environmental, social, drug, military, education, immigration, and taxation policies that deal in long term thinking, don't revolve around cultural arrogance and faux American exceptionalism, adhere to the Constitution, observes the separation of church and state, recognizes the value of real work as opposed to investment/speculative wealth, etc. etc. etc. . . .
I doubt you get the picture but labels are necessarily loaded with inapposit meaning though sometimes useful. And I've never not identified openly as a progressive liberal. It's conservatives who are starting to hide because your constricted worldview is patently wrong, has never worked, and people are starting to realize that fact.
BTW what is the conservative view on the military anyway? Stormtroopering all over the planet trying to solve every problem at the point of the barrel of a gun is good bidness, good morals, and good foreign policy. Genius. Really. The military has a role set out by the Constitution that is far removed from the role it is currently playing at the behest of conservatives. And just for the dimbulbs in the cheap seats, acts of terrorism should and could be combated as an international criminal justice problem quite cost effectively if there was the will on the part of America. And yeah certain elements of the military could play a role, but that role isn't to go around preemptively invading sovereign nations who aren't planning and capable of being an imminent threat to us, our citizens, or our allies. Catch a clue, put down the koolaid dixie cups, and pay attention. Assuming your conservative brethren/sisters in the pews in the House/Senate don't attempt to thwart everything we do, we just might be able to start cleaning up some of the messes made by conservatives over the last 35 years.
Ok, I had to upload some pics from the sail foam. I had to open a silly Flickr account. Not sure if this will work, but link @ sig.
I lost my anonymity on the web looooong ago. I don't care.
President Bush said he'd sign an assault weapons ban, if passed by Congress.
According to surveys, most gun owners favor such a ban, too.
And the Democratic Party's platform plank on gun control?
Basically that they'd go as far as President Bush would, and as far as the gun owners want, but that's all.
Admittedly, my bolder parts can be overwhelming
I've been following this all day and admit to my interest. I'm not often (well, never, essentially) clear about what you, Jebbie and ethics_professor are talking about. Nevertheless, my interest is piqued and I await your or ethics_professor weighing in, with bolder parts present.
By the way, I say this as a fellow of upright moral character whose lapsed morals are characteristically wilted.
And with Jebbie's background cowgirl tunes,
Noctambulist. Bang 'us' with 2-Tambourines!
Now, I understand a little bit-Cell Foam Pics.
Many important rhetorical questions have been posited by commenters here today, and I think they deserve some real consideration.
Who has the money to run for office, and is there not a drastic need for campaign finance reform?
Who can bear under media (and Intertubes) scrutiny to survive the campaign process? (Not I!)
Did Obama's incredible fundraising on the Web change public financing forever? What is the future of campaign financing?
Why has most of the nation's money stayed in the hands of the very few, and how can that change? Who is most threatened by "spreading the wealth" and why is their view so myopic?
Who, besides the moneyed oligarchy, feels good about this widening disparity of wealth?
Has nepotism always been part of this culture and how can that change? (Besides my campaign of "Everyone OUT of the Pool!") Do we simply vote against incumbents willy-nilly or do we elect on issues?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
