Saturday, May 31, 2008

If Democrats can't run their own Election, why should they run a Country?

Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee is meeting publicly to discuss what to do with the Invisible Primaries of Michigan (where Malcot lives) and Florida.

Democrats have been having problems this year:

1) Proportional Representation -- It allowed Candidates to linger while able to extract more delegates.

2) Superdelegates -- To override the votes of Delegates; Yes Democrats, Super Delegates votes count more then regular voters

3) The Invisible Primaries -- The GOP had the same problem. Earlier this year, a decision was made, cut the two states delegates in half and allow "Winner take all," Problem solved, the GOP moved on.

Senator Clinton is trying to gain back the two states to increase her chances of winning the Democratic Party nomination; Senator Obama is working on his "unity" theme (strange how it is fine to insult Republicans though, so much for unity or Bi-partisanship).

If Democrats can't run their own Primary without highlighting an obscure committee during an election, how can they run Health care?


socialize it

7 comments:

  1. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. The Constitution gives the power to regulate elections and the election process to the States under the provisions of Article 1 Section 4, Clause 1:


    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
    Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
    but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
    as to the Places of chusing Senators.


    Furthermore, this position is reinforced by the text of the Tenth Amendment:

    Amendment 10

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    In U. S. v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), Justice Stone writing for the majority extended these provisions to cover primary elections.

    Unless the constitutional protection of the integrity of 'elections' extends to primary elections, Congress is left powerless to effect the constitutional purpose, and the popular choice of representatives is stripped of its constitutional protection save only as Congress, by taking over the control of state elections, may exclude from them the influence of the state primaries. Such an expedient would end that state autonomy with respect to elections which
    the Constitution contemplated that Congress should be free to leave undisturbed, subject only to such minimum regulation as it should find necessary to insure the freedom [313 U.S. 299, 320] and integrity of the choice. Words, especially those of a constitution, are not to be read with such stultifying narrowness.
    The words of 2 and 4 of Article I, read in the sense which is plainly
    permissible and in the light of the constitutional purpose, require us to hold that a primary election which involves a necessary step in the choice of
    candidates for election as representatives in Congress, and which in the circumstances of this case controls that choice, is an election within the meaning of the constitutional provision and is subject to congressional
    regulation as to the manner of holding it.
    Footnote omitted

    Given this ruling I would argue that the Democractic National Committee exceeded its authority and had no right to strip the States of Michigan and Florida of their right to allocate delegates. By stripping them the DNC has illegally abrogated and denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their rights to choose a candidate under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and the Tenth Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They wanted proportional representation to support more diversity, and look what it's gotten them.

    I just want to get on with the campaign, and start hammering Obama, who'll eventually win out after all this is over. He's the "One."

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's truly maddening to be a left leaning independent with no viable options other than these idiot democrats. On one hand, they're slightly less evil than you republicans. On the other hand, look what they're doing now. Not exactly inspiring.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's like I ALWAYS say vote Libertarian it is the only way to take back the country. The Democrats are lunatics, the Republicans are lunatics as well but on a different scale. Even Senator Levin admitted this is an "irrational" system and I personally think he's quite a jackass. Course the Democrats have the Jackass as their symbol so what do we expect. Interestingly enough Michigan proposed the compromise that went down. I guess I'll have to make some comments about that since motek here has linked you all to my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Malcot, I've found libertarians to be a bit on the loonie side too. The funny thing about them is that they have one thing that one side loves and the other side hates and vice versa. Liberals love their stance on civili liberties but are scared of their economics and conservatives like their economics but no so much the civil liberties. They'll never get enough mainstream support like that.

    I really want to support a third party, but only if they start from the ground up and get elected officials in every state, county and municipality so they have the infrastructure needed for a run at the top. Out of all the smaller parties, the libertarians seem to have the best grassroots movement going, followed by the Greens.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jason, well as I said previously political parties are loonie in general but my preference is for the Libertarians. Everyone likes to characterize the Libertarians in bizarre ways, so I'm glad to see you haven't gone that crazy. You seem to have a good head on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bizarre ways like calling libertarians just a bunch of pot smoking republicans? I must admit, I've said that one before. Though I know that's only some libertarians :)

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...