Posted on 02/26/2008 6:43:21 AM PST by SE Mom
Pretty similiar to these folks. dual marriages (I think we have at least 3, but the husband or wife does not work in the same command). benefits for college is a biggie. I guess the majority of those in this command is as you described.
“At least we have a volunteer army rather than draftees who would have no choice”
Perhaps that’s why it will be a _democratic_ regime that re-institutes the draft, as those who care to be in the military under the Obamessiah muster out (that is, if he LETS them leave!)...
- John
I see you need to read Article II, Section I, too. Pay specific attention to this passage:
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 Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then The House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.
Note: Absolutely no mention of the popular vote whatsoever. Now, you can believe that your vote as a citizen somehow counts towards the election of the President in the general election, but it does not. It's all decided in Congress if there is a tie in the electoral vote.
I hope this clears this matter up for you. Oh, one other thing, you, as a citizen, have absolutely no "right" to vote in a Presidential election whatsoever. None.
No matter how you try to twist this, we do not live in a Democracy. The word "Democracy" does not appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It would behoove you to read both documents before you open your mouth and remove all doubt.
No, I don't waste my time with people who don't have a clue what they are talking about or folks that simply refuse to learn or folks who spew false information about what they "think" a document like the Constitution says. I've read the Constitution and I know what it says. It's a pity you don't......but I did try to help you. Never forget that.
My "Libertarian leanings" are as follows: I think every person should be responsible for their own actions. BTW, that includes politicians. I think that the only crimes that occur are the ones that do harm to others and this also includes politicians. If your actions harm another person, physically or financially, you should be made to pay restitution in one form or another, up to and including loosing your life if you willingly take the life of another citizen. IOW, if my behavior does not affect harm to you or anyone else, why should it be a crime? Why should you care one iota what I do in the privacy of my own home, unless you have some need to control others? Remember our founding principles: "freedom and liberty"? Gubmint and our laws ain't the reason why we became the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history. Freedom and Liberty are the reasons why we are the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. We are loosing those freedoms and liberties with each passing day. The result of which is not going to be pretty, nor will it do anything to foster future generation's freedoms and liberties.
In so far as the Libertarian party and their views, I differ greatly. For example, no, I don't think that we should be isolationist in our foreign policy, and, no, I don't think that addictive drugs should be legal. It might be better if you asked what I meant by that statement instead of running away with what you thought I meant.
Not voting at all will make as much difference as voting for the wrong person.
True for all elections except the general election where you "vote" for President.
Nothing in Article II, Section I contradicts what I said.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”
The manner in which the legislature of every state has directed is to hold a popular vote and appoint the electors according to its results.
Yes, it’s true the Congress chooses in the event of a tie. So what? And where did I say we live in a Democracy or that I have a right to vote for the president?
I merely said that a person’s vote on election day, under the current system, is not worthless. (especially if they live in Ohio!)
You imply one man, one vote, i.e., Democracy.
I merely said that a person’s vote on election day, under the current system, is not worthless.
I think Algore would disagree with you, too.....
I think the .0092% of Florida voters who put Bush over the top would disagree with you. Without them, Al Gore would have been president. And you called their vote worthless.
Read the SCOTUS decision. It had nothing to do with the popular vote......
Without the .0092% of Florida voters who put Bush over the top, there would have been no Supreme Court decision because Gore would have been the undisputed winner.
The following was excerpted from the "ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT" from Gore vs. Bush 2001:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The Florida Supreme Court tried to change the rules in midstream. Got it?
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.