Next Prez Must Make Bush an Unperson
“No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to anyone who assumes public office in violation of the Constitution and the law. The civil population has the right to rise up in defense of the constitutional order. The acts of those who usurp public office are null and void.”
–Article 46, Constitution of Peru
Comedian Bill Maher is a brilliant contrarian. He dislikes George Bush. Yet his view of the stolen 2000 election is conventional, ahistorical and quintessentially American: Forget it! Move on! “Oh, Ted,” he replied when I mentioned the judicial coup d’état on his TV show, which aired October 3, 2001. “That’s so September 10th. It really is.”
It has been nearly eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court violated the Constitution by installing George W. Bush as president. Their ruling was immaterial. They shouldn’t have agreed to hear Bush v. Gore in the first place. Under Article II of the Constitution, Federal courts don’t have jurisdiction in election disputes. The state supreme courts–in that case, Florida–have the final word.
It’s tempting, as Maher suggested, to try to move past 2000. But we can’t. What followed doesn’t allow it.
When a ruler seizes office by extralegal means he rules the same way. Because he does not derive his power from the people–indeed, his rule relies on their passivity–he is not beholden to them. Selling the public on his policies is hard enough for a legitimately elected ruler; an illegal one has to resort to bullying, presented as a stern, autocratic triumph of the will. He is forced to order his lawyers to find legal loopholes using the most tortured reasoning imaginable. In the end, when citizens turn against him, the tyrant shrugs his shoulders. “So?” This is what the vice president replied when a reporter asked about polls showing that Americans have turned against the Iraq War. Cheney’s question was perfectly reasonable. Why should he care what we think? We didn’t elect him. He doesn’t owe us the slightest consideration.
Electoral illegitimacy begets illegitimate rule: Secret detentions and torture redefined into meaninglessness. Secret prisons. Ending habeas corpus, the right to have one’s case heard before a judge–a right English-speaking people had enjoyed for 800 years. Secret “signing statements” purporting to negate laws signed in public. Spying on Americans, lying about it to Congress, and then, after getting caught, trying to legalize it retroactively. Destroying evidence. An executive order granting the president the power to declare anyone–without evidence–an “enemy combatant,” then order that person imprisoned for life, or even assassinated.
Even if the next president has promised to end extraordinary renditions (which began under Bill Clinton), close Gitmo, outlaw torture and overturn the Military Commissions Act, which eliminated habeas corpus, he or she will surely be tempted to retain some of Bush’s beefed up new executive powers upon moving into the Oval Office. Who wouldn’t want to read their political opponents’ email and listen to their phone calls?
But let’s posit, for the sake of argument, that Bush’s evildoing comes to an end next January. There will still be a mess to clean up.
One million Iraqis and Afghans are dead. Tens of thousands more have been tortured and maimed. Thousands of dead soldiers; tens of thousands more grievously wounded. Millions of Americans have had their privacy violated. They deserve justice. We deserve justice. The war criminals, torturers and phone companies deserve due process. If there are consequences for driving fast and cheating on your taxes, after all, there surely ought to be a price to pay for urinating on an innocent man in a dog cage at Guantánamo.
America might want to move on. How can the rest of the world let us?
Bush v. Gore gave us an illegitimate president. Bush presided over an outlaw government. If we sit on our asses, as we’ve done since that weird, soul-crushing day in late December of 2000, illegality will be hardwired into the U.S. government. The country itself will become, like the Soviet Union and its wonderful freedom-guaranteeing constitution, a caricature of itself. “What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech,” the old Russian joke went. “Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.” A gangster regime presiding over the trappings of law and order is a vicious joke–illegitimate and ultimately doomed.
There’s one way–only one way–to avoid ratifying Bush’s legacy. The next president must do the following three things immediately upon taking office:
1. Issue an executive order declaring all laws and actions undertaken by the Bush Administration, the states and local municipalities (because many state and local ordinances are influenced by national politics) between January 2001 and January 2009 null and void.
2. Act quickly to restore the rule of law–freeing Gitmo inmates, offering compensation to victims of torture and rendition, order immediate withdrawals of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other undeclared wars.
3. Create a cabinet-level department to investigate top officials and subordinates of the Bush interregnum for crimes they may have committed and refer them to the appropriate courts for arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.
When Charles de Gaulle took over as president of France at the end of World War II, he erased the Vichy regime from the history books. “Vichy is, and remains forever, null and void,” he declared. Yale historian Jay Winter explained de Gaulle’s reasoning: “Pétain’s government was de facto, not de jure; therefore, the Republic had not died [in 1940]; it had been usurped by the traitors who had signed the Armistice with the Nazis.” It’s a kind of fiction (Vichy had a stronger case than Bush to be considered legitimate), but defining Vichy as an aberration reaffirmed France’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Pétain was convicted of treason. His death sentence was commuted to life in prison. Hundreds of officials were prosecuted during the postwar épuration (purge). France moved on.
I know none of this is likely to happen. But this is no time to be “realistic.” The German patriot Henning von Tresckow, leader of a circle of officers who tried to kill Hitler in 1944, knew that their plot was a long shot. Nevertheless, the general urged his comrades to go ahead “at any cost…We must prove to the world and to future generations that the men of the German Resistance movement dared to take the decisive step and to hazard their lives upon it.”
Now it is time for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain to prove that they are true patriots. Unlike Tresckow, they need risk neither life nor limb. Their supporters should press them to declare that, should they become President, they will erase George W. Bush and his deeds from American history.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
42 Comments.
Absolutely right, Ted. It is, alas, a hope more gloriously impossible than any Obamian oratorical fantasy, but keep hammering at it. The destruction of the last vestiges of American democracy is not something we should "get over."
Just don't say anything to me right now about global warming. I already have a migraine.
Jana C.H.
Seattle, Soviet of Washington
Old USSR Joke: There’s no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda.
yeah, the get-over-it doctrine always bugged me.
ANYONE WHO RUNS ON THE "EXECUTE BUSH/CHENEY" TICKET WILL WIN.
Damn!!!
Ted hits another one out of the park!!!
Like Ted and Angelo, I always hated the "let's move on" attitude of the American people.
The sad truth is that we have the attention spans of gnats (probably due to TV) and incredible pride in our ignorance of history and our refusal to learn anything from it.
Mike Royko described the situation perfectly in one of his columns when he suggested that as a nation we've grown collectively senile.
God help us!
I find it very hard to get over it when I'm still getting it (though many are getting it much worse). In any case, I'm going to annoy some Presidential candidates' staffers by emailing your column to them.
T.Rall, you never fail to bring it HARDCORE! Awesome column! We must spread this message far and wide to make it a reality. Keep up the great work.
The "conservative" bobble-heads will accuse you of treason. I accuse you of writing your best and most important column to date.
So what's to stop any future Repub from doing the same to President Obama's reign?
This is why I read you, Ted. On the button.
Good luck!
BTW, what kind of President do you think Clinton will be? She appears to only be interested in gaining power for herself; trying to destroy her party rather than lose her big chance. Scary.
+1 for this being your best column ever, Ted (at least of the ones I've seen). Glad we have you (and by "we" I mean America).
What do you think of Pelosi's "New Direction" stuff, threatening to put impeachment back on the table? Do you think it's just posturing? Maybe El Busho isn't holding up his end of whatever shady backroom bargain they made to take impeachment off the table in the first place? Maybe Pelosi's mafia bosses are telling her to get tough? I'm curious about your take on it…
Fuck Bill Maher. His denial of the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job is his inability to put 2 and 2 together. A cursory glance at Mukasey's bullshit speech about the "phone call from the Afghan safe house" should be enough for a full investigation. 9/11 is and was, America's Reichstag and Maher wastes time looking for opportunities to make cunt jokes, giggling just like a 14 year old with his first erection. Anybody see this week's Frontline?? Waiting for KBR?? ?? You got to be fucking kidding me!!! The more I think about it the less I believe that the next election will take place. But if it does occur, Pardons all around!!!
"And you sit there and talk revolution, but can you tell me just who's in command? When you show me the forces we're fighting, then I'll join you and gladly make plans…" Dorme bene…
Hell, yes.
Best. Column. Ever.
Though I must admit there's a part of me that would like to see the neocons hoisted on the petard of their own "unitary executive" theory.
Unfortunately, even if a Democrat wins in November, it just isn't going to happen. Obama's too conciliatory to jam the Republicans' own medicine down their throats, and Clinton is, for all intents an purposes, one of them.
I'm afraid that reversing the damage of the last eight years — if it happens at all — is going to take decades. I hope to live to see it (from a distance, having long since expatriated).
Shades of Gollum in this column: My precious! They stole it from us! Nasty judgeses! They tooks it!
Gollum was a pathetic figure, from his story's beginning right down to his grinning swim in the lava, clutching the object of his obsession. It's this sad caricature from which Maher was attempting to save you, if only to spare himself an embarassing association in prime time and re-runs.
Although I realize that FACTS frequently do not penetrate your polemical froth, I'll make your readership aware (so that some may be afforded the opportunity to recognize the depth of your not-so-lonely delusion, and thence decide not to share in it), that Bush won every legitimate count of Florida votes in '00. Since the continuing recounts were being conducted with disparate (and largely Gore-favoring) standards from county to county, the US Supremes acted quite rightly to invoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution to stop the lunacy. You find this unsatisfying, but the legality of the outcome was finalized for all time when Congress accepted the FL electors. You may rail about butterfly ballots and felon voting rights, but your foundational premise–that the Bush 1st term election was illegal–is simply incorrect.
The full text of the Military Commissions Act is available on-line for anyone who wishes to disabuse themselves of your ideas about the associated presidential powers. It describes in detail the considerable due process to which unlawful combatants are entitled. Don't worry, every murdering scumbag on the planet can assert habeas corpus, and they have. There's plenty of learned criticism on the 'net, but none of it supports your burbles about Bush's power to whimsically imprison for life or assassinate.
Your hyperbolic thirst for justice over privacy violations similarly doesn't stand up to close parsing. I don't consider you a traitor, so I don't imagine you're pining over your inability to make private phone calls to organize violence against the homeland. I am, however, unable to unearth a single instance of redressable harm attributed to these supposed violations. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with a specific tale of personal loss.
So, when considering your three propositions for the next president, we must dismiss #1 as being based in your false premise. We must also recast #2 as your desire to change the laws again (and probably redact your bleeding-heart bit about "compensation to victims" as undeserved rewards for killers), just as we must also realize that withrawal from "undeclared" (yet not illegal) wars has little to do with "restoring the rule of law."
As for #3, I'm sure you'd love to see Bush tarred and feathered before the sweep of history quite probably decides that his bold action led to a better imperfect world than alternative scenarios might have provided. But history will have its say since, as even you admit, your melodramatic daydream will not be realized. Bush is not surrendering, so your comparison to Vichy France is a bit strained; a much stronger association to it could be made against the liberal platform of withrawal/appeasement in the War on Terror. Similar weak-kneed dithering allowed Hitler to prosper, you'll remember. Righting his wrongs cost the Greatest Generation dearly in blood and treasure; they must scoff at you in their graves for your whining about our casualties of the last five years, which pale in comparison to their daily sacrifices during WWII. You may think you're speaking truth to power, but many of us know that we must show power to evil without waver. In this respect, Bush's ideas mirror, not contrast, those of von Tresckow. After all, he's dared to take the decisive steps, despite the hardships and uncertain outcome.
No one will consider you a historian, and we won't be erasing history to suit your taste. But we're happy to affirm your right to vent your angst over the loss of erstwhile-candidate Moonbeam, even when embellished with your stock-in-trade mendacious demagoguery.
great column, ted…
however, there is a slight catch…
bush's two terms aren't that much different from the status quo in many respects – vichy and the third reich itself were (or could reasonably portrayed as such by their opposition afterwards)
vichy and the third reich itself were overthrown by revolution (and outside intervention), not reform…
[btw, this is not necessarily a call to revolution, much less a violent one – reform could be a good idea, only you'd need a different historical precedent than vichy – venezuela comes to mind…]
regards
andreas
Wouldn't it be nice . . . . .
(beach boys stuck in my head now).
Rock on Ted!
Oh, and mr. Man00ver- though i hate to give you reason to write more, here are some inconvenient ones for you. More people are dead because of Bush than Saddam, and 9/11 didn't even come from Iraq. 9/11 didn't even really come from Afghanistan, the men we think planned and carried out the hijackings are Saudis, including Bin Laden (great job catching him by the way). And Bush's granddaddy got along pretty well with the Nazis, so don't go making Hitler-appeasement comparisons because its not even close to being the same.
And if you think locking people up without public trial is ok, then its too bad you didnt spend time in Stalinist Russia… Back in grade school, they taught me that the USA is supposed to be better than that.
Mazel Tov, Ted. You're a complete psychopath. Way to get those braindead we hate republicans but don't really know why except pot-stirring morons like ted rall tell us that he's evil, man. way to attempt to devour the hand that feeds you.
I just look at Nader's Zogby poll numbers (as well as his recent successful petition drive to be on the ballot in McCain's state of Arizona), and feel good that there is an alternative to the corporate politicians who don't care about the people or the country.
We need a revolution.
Let us never forget that it was Bill Maher who was going around saying "Give War a Chance" during the run up to Iraq. Wasn't that a clever turn of a phrase? What a comedian.
Now he and millions of other spineless, gutless Americans who stood quietly by while the war was started or, worse, supported it wholeheartedly in the belief it would be a gas-price-dropping cakewalk that would restore America's illusion of invulnerability, are turning out against the war in droves, expecting somebody to listen to them.
Can anyone blame Dick Cheney or anyone else for saying "So?" to anything these people have to say?
ManOOver, sign up for active duty please!! I'd sleep so much better knowing that you'd be doing what I won't do. The mission is to drop you, Cheney, Bush and the rest of the high command into Baghdad with nothing but a Bowie knife. Take out all the bad Muslims and return to Valhalla in glory. To paraphrase Matt Groening, "Voting republican makes you an accomplice to their crimes." P.S. I ain't a demmie-crat, either. Dorme bene….
I support this fully. The elections of 2000 and 2004 were both illegal. According to the GAO, massive fraud favoring the Republican party was done in both.
Therefore, declaring both illegal and from that, all laws, tax breaks, appointees… The $300 and then $600 ones were from one pocket, and a little more from the other one, so no real harm to Joe Anybody. Joe Millionaire, on the other hand, will have a LOT of back taxes due with penalty interest. The IRS should just say "If you pay us quick, we'll pretend you just made a boo boo and the interest will be included. Resist, and we'll go RICO on your elite butt."
April Fools !!! (that ridiculous post was me) The theme I was going for was Sean Hannity with a thesarus. I am surprised none of you called me on all of the crap I threw in there:
1) For starters, the world is better off because of "Bush's bold action".
2)The Supreme court was correct in not allowing all of the votes to be recounted. Bush V Gore was not a 5-4 split, and most legal scholars agree with its findings (lmao).
3) calling someone a combatant makes it legal.
4) government spying doesn't hurt anyone.
5) Any protest can be considered "violence against the homeland" (I was just getting lazy at that point)
6) the war on terror is.
5) liberals are appeasing the terrorists
7) "President" Bush is "fighting" "evil".
8) Terrorists chicken out when you "show power"
But the most obvious clue that I was jerking all of your chains was trying to paint Gollum as "pathetic"
The ring was safe from Sauron for 500 years only because Gollum claimed it. Only after idiot Bilbo stole it did we start to worry about Sauron again.
Furthermore, Gollom gave his life to save the world by taking the ring into Mount Doom–while dumbass Frodo almost took it right to Sauron himself, which would have brought the world to an abrupt end.
Geez, did you guys not even see the movie? Or are you just devoid of any critical skillz.
Angelo,
I read the books when I was 12. I am now 39. I can't remember much of it, so I didn't get that. I was going to tear your funny post a new one, but then decided against it because it would have required that I spend time thinking about it and responding with appropriate dismissivness. Other than that… Funny joke!
FUKKEN BRILLIANT. I would copy/paste a bit for a teaser at my blog to link back here, but cannot get a link out of it. THIS IS JUST BRILLIANT THINKING AND WRITING, thank you.
Farg you, Angelo!!!! You fargin sneaky bastidge!!! If I could only say to Hannity what I posted for you!!! I figured your nom de post liked the fascist angle Led Zep took from TLOTR. Or was that Wizards?? Besides, I should have known Tolkien is a bit too Hippy-Trippy for NASCAR lovin' republicans. Ya fooled me!!! Dorme bene…
Dear Anonymous (Beach Boy): Thanks for playing. Most of your points are, well, off-point, and I'd need many column-inches to correct your mistakes if I indulged myself. I don't think you have the stamina, so I'll spare you my well-considered explanation of the War on Terror, which commenced well after the 2000 election we're discussing here (at which point the irrelvant Prescott Bush was mostly converted to used worm food). I will say that locking up dangerous people before trial is not at all unusual in our legal system, and that the MCA provides unlawful combatants with direct access to the DC Appellate Court, followed by SCOTUS review. The proceedings are matters of public record.
Dear Anonymous (Dorme bene): Sorry to wake you. Please go back to sleep and dream up a more entertaining lampoon mission for me. I'm too old for active duty, so I'd have to undertake it in my own dreams, unfortunately…but it'll have to be something that doesn't involve getting naked with Bush and Cheney. Here's a mission for you: try to form some political opinions that don't rely on cartoonist input.
Dear Anonymous @ 3:31 PM: If the GAO had real evidence of massive fraud in '00 and '04, surely the DNC would have long ago pressed for criminal charges. Might you be fooling yourself just a little? After all, you're surely deluded if you think hundreds of millions of "Joe Anybodys" would painlessly cough up their tax rebates if Bush's acts as president were voided. Now imagine that significant numbers of the same JA's simultaneously lose their jobs due to the corporate tax penalties you envision. Rall really should've more closely examined the legislative record of the last 8 years before offering such a childlike proposal in a serious tone. What he really appears to want is to get out the red pen and strike out those things he doesn't like. But during that project, he'd curiously find that Bush has done plenty of things that he likes well enough. Rationalizing that realization might cause a cranial detonation, or at least seriously cut into his lucrative doodle time, so don't hold your breath waiting for his detailed analysis. Remember Gandalf's warning, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends," and his unpublished corollary, "and that goes double for leftists."
Angelo: You da man! Or I guess I am at the moment, since we're apparently sharing posession of this blogger. I guess I should quit shutting the brain off when I take a break, though. "Hannity with a thesaurus"…priceless! I'll let you off mostly scott-free, only pointing out that the constitutional question in Bush v. Gore was decided 7-2. Oh, and I'll chide your familiarity with Middle Earth's history by pointing out that Saroman's agents instantly found and tortured Gollum when Sauron had sufficiently recovered to move on his plans. Good thing the Bagginses had the ring at that point.
Possibly (in)significant: Rall used to make Bush look like a hobbit, before he got lazy and stuck the generalissimo hat on him instead.
As someone who came about his distrust for and disgust at Bush a different way than most people did (He lost any legitimacy with be back in February 2000 when he stole the SC Republican Presidential Primary…long story…) I can wholeheartedly agree with Ted's statements. It's worth pointing out that Greg Palast has suggested that the RICO act be used to prosecute Bush and remove him from office. (Of course, then the White House would be under Department of Justice (sic?) control…)
The only problem I have with that is that the Constitution prohibits any Ex Post Facto laws… (Of course, if they were consistent in enforcing this, there would be no Telecom Immunity and no War Crimes Immunity acts…)
SCOTUS did rule 5-4, that the votes could not be recounted in Bush v. Gore.
The hilarity continues:
1) "…surely the DNC would have long ago pressed for criminal charges"
2) you might like some of the things Bush did
The insiuation that the DNC is competent is funny for obvious reasons. But using the fact that it is impossible for any tyrant to do evil 24-7 as proof that it is wrong to criticise them was a fail-proof closer. Whoever you are, you brought the house down, even if you stole my premise.
well i'm not in a beach boys mood today.
But Man00ver. What about "9/11 not equals Iraq"? That one is kindof important dont you think? My kids will be paying the bill in the form of taxes for years. And hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are going to have millions of relatives who are really angry at the USA, and probably will be for life, even if we can convince them it was all an honest mistake. How's that going to help anyone's future? The last 8 years of US government have been one epic mistake after another, set us back by decades. How can you defend that?
Man00ver, the nazis took old men at the end so age is no excuse.
What the hell is going on here?? Is angelo man00ver?
I seen these big shots all come and go
Been there myself and theres one thing I know
You got to choose your heroes, choose them well
They could be leading you straight into hell
Let me be your protection
Keep the vampires off your neck
Sample your wine and
Stay so near that youll never have a thing to fear
Get thee behind me satan
Big as a mountain, strong as a diamond
Rock love
Bright as a nova burning forever
Rock love
Close as a heart beat, free as the water
Rock love
Get thee behind me satan
I see the same damn faces in the news
Taking up sides when there aint nothing to choose
I think their game is just designed to confuse
They cut the pie up and the rest of us lose
Let me be your advisor
Keep the monkeys off your back
Figure your taxes
Stay up all night making sure that everything is right
Get thee behind me satan
It seems like only yesterday
Remember when I used to say
I knew wed be in vogue someday
Rock love is love and not fade away
Lord you got to rock on
Got to rock steady
Spinning on the rock of love
Fuck you,ya nazi bastard!!!!
Man00ver:
In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature. – Wikipedia
And it's Saruman.
almost forgot this one:
Similar weak-kneed dithering allowed Hitler to prosper, you'll remember.
The joke being that it is a matter of historical record that it was the brutal and destructive terms imposed by the winners in WWI which led to Hitlers rise. That is why Keynes wanted creditors to assist debtors in making adjustments in their economies. But no one listened to Keynes, they listened to idiot Harry Dexter. That is why we are headed toward another depression and there are little Hitlers just waiting to spring up all over the world.
I think a main misconception of a lot of war-minded conservatives is that the world should be like whack-a-mole. Just keep playing, day and night, till you run out of quarters. Then you start to borrow from your friends and you parents and your kids. Pretty soon, whack-a-mole is all you have. Then you run out of quarters, and, thankfully, kill yourself.
Since this blog just became surreal, I should say that I'm the real man00ver. Angelo, are you going Andy Kaufman on us or Rove?
The Internet can be annoying, and no more so than when people don't care to lift a keyboard to do their own research.
I've written at length about the 2000 election theft, including in a chapter of "Wake Up, You're Liberal!"
Wanna know what I think about a topic? Check out my previous writings. Not only do I not have any interest in writing the same stuff over and over again–as it is, I have to repeat myself way too much–but most of my readers don't have much interest in reading it.
Gotta love Sparticus' cordiality. But I still think it is a joke. Adding to the oddity, he/she is making my points for me:
1) there is a "madman on the loose" who is comparable to Hitler.
2) This madman bombs innocent people, turning pacifists into fighters.
and then he ties it back to Ted's original article:
3) This is no time to be weak. This religio-facist and his cadre ought to be taken from power and their legacy thoroughly excised from history. we cannot ignore history.
This has to be what he means, unless he is actually comparing Osama to Hitler, in shich case, we know he is joking since not even the FBI blames Osama for 9-11.
ManOOver is full of ManUre.
Greetings, Ted. For providing a public space for discussion, and for reading same, my thanks. Nice of you to check in and give kurt a lesson in dismissiveness.
(Pay attention, kurt. Being dismissive is very easy. You can choose the vapid insult method, ala anonymous @ 4/5 6:42 PM, which is completed in a trice, and is quite self-satisfying if you don't mind the appearance of limited wit. Ted is much more artful, with only minimal extra effort. Note the oblique denigration, the delegation of argument to the morass of his prior works, and the plug for his book…all accomplished with an economy of word and thought. Contrast with "beatnik poet," who actually had to fly to another planet to beam in his confusing vituperation, which honestly would have been lost on me if not for his coarsely punctuating endnote.)
I read your stuff, Ted (not the books, I admit, nor those of Hannity or Coulter), but I'm still confused about your argument. Since you've raised the issue again in this column (which is largely an updated rehash of this 7 year old diatribe, it's fair to assume you think the topic is still open for discussion.
I'll try to be brief, unaccustomed as I am. This week, you claim that USC Article 2 indicates "Federal courts don't have jurisdiction in election disputes." Surely you're aware that there is no language pertaining to judicial review or authority in the whole of the Article. While you must be trying to draw support from section 1 paragraph 2 (a cinch to read and understand for those with interest), it merely invests state legislatures with the power to direct the manner in which that state's electors are appointed. How then does it impede SCOTUS' power of certiorari?
I won't accuse you of failing to research your Constitutional analysis, so please explain yourself. Or recant. Excuse me, but my personal BS detector is pegged in the red.
P.S. I see you there angelo. Please be patient. I don't want to let Ted off-hook by spreading points.
We are having fun. I love the perverse, cartooned prose we are pioneering here. This skit about a conservative blog hound, who unwittingly argues against himself at every turn, while bumbling anchor tags when html tutorials are click away is poignant and funny. (but I'd ditch the whole charitable shtick. Your original, righteous, over the top tone was much more entertaining.)
Sadly, though I think you are comic genius, I think the routine may have run its course for everyone else.
I'll let you finish the joke with no more interruptions. But first I have one more question. Did I hear you call into the radio show back in '99? This verbose man called in and he had a very well-organized, systematic rebuttal to Ted's argument, that night. But he kept saying stuff like "this next fact will cause you to feel an acute sting behind your right eye", as he would go down the list. Unfortunately, time constraints cut the conversation short. I still use that line when arguing. Just a starry-eyed hunch.
(if you want to test your anchors during the preview without possibly losing all you have written, try right-clicking and selecting "open link in new window". If you are on a mac, I think it is ctrl+mouseclick or shift+mouseclick to get that pull-down menu. At any rate, it also depends on your browser.)
btw, don't worry about "spreading points", I think Ted is the moderator. If you are worried about the rest of the room missing your punchline…I wouldn't.
Angelo, I'll still thank you for your attempt to instruct me. I feel sure I had the anchors properly done in my re-post of links. They looked just fine in preview, and worked there when opened in a new window. But I guess I'm not hyper enough for flawless hypertext, so I'll keep to the plain stuff hereafter.
It's a new week already, and I'm probably out of time to press my case before this column loses its currency and becomes just more swill in the bilge. Did the caller in '99 (who was not me) make any headway with a well-presented argument? I'm guessing no, but I'd love to read a transcript. Anyway, it HAS been fun and I do think I've made at least one irrefutable point: one has a perfect right to a wrong opinion, but adding weight to it with faulty references to the Constitution is BS. Glad you found it partially entertaining. And your comedic misconstruing was the most effective dismissal on offer, in my book. Your competitors weren't really very strong, though. Good effort nonetheless.
Ted, good luck with your grief processing. It's gotta be tough to be concurrently stuck in stages 1-4 for so many years, especially when "bargaining" so far from reality. I fear lifelong damage to your sanity (such as it is), since at this rate you're not likely to recover in time to prepare for your next disappointment later this year. Voting your Naderite conscience may dull the sting. Hugs.
They looked just fine in preview, and worked there when opened in a new window. But I guess I'm not hyper enough for flawless hypertext, so I'll keep to the plain stuff hereafter.
So few people insert anchors here because I think they recognize that this blog is largely token. After you lose a few long posts because of a login error, you sort of just stop caring. That said, comments on the blog are a relatively new feature. And I'm not sure I would want this to look like blogs I have seen elsewhere.