[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday, 22 April 2003 at  9:45:57 -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
<clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 09:02, Randy Arabie wrote:
> 
> *snip*
> 
> > > He holds the office, but that doesn't mean that I have to recognize
> > > him as legitimate. And I don't -- I refuse to address him as
> > > "president" or use the term "president" to describe Bush. 
> > 
> > I'm glad the folks in the military, members of congress, and others at
> > all levels of government apparently have a more mature stance regarding
> > the 2000 Presidential Election.
> 
> First, I don't consider my stance "immature" -- as usual, you're dodging
> the issue -- that is, that I don't consider Bush's election legitimate
> and there are certainly some grounds for dispute.  

I think your stance is immature, only a few degrees better than "I'll take my
toys and go home."

The dispute has been settled, that's what the Supreme Court ruling was
all about.  If you believe there is still something to dispute, then you
don't recognize the Supreme Court's ruling and/or authority.

> Second, you raise an interesting point, kind of: If I were an elected or
> appointed official, would I recognize Bush as president. Since I'm not,
> I haven't really given the issue much thought -- I don't plan on running
> for office or holding an appointed office, so I really haven't thought
> about whether or not I'd recognize Bush in an official capacity. 
> 
> If I were in that position, I suppose I'd just deal with the situation
> and move on. Voice my opinion that I didn't think that the result was
> legitimate, but that there's little to do but deal with it -- but that's
> a different matter than an individual saying that Bush isn't "my"
> president. 
> 
> > Just imagine if half of the US Congress got up and went home because
> > their guy didn't win.  Or, imagine if half of the US Military didn't
> > recognize Dubya as the Commander in Chif because they didn't vote for
> > him.
> 
> Hmmm... Congress with no quorum and the legislature at a standstill. I
> can think of worse things. A couple of years with no new laws being
> passed... yeah, I think we could deal with that. There's the budget
> issue, though... 
> 
> First, I don't think a member of Congress has to claim the president to
> do their job. I'm reasonably sure I could find examples of Republican
> members of Congress saying that Clinton is "not my president," but I
> don't think any of them packed up and went home. 

Members of Congress take an Oath of Office which obliges them to uphold
the Constitution.  The Office of President gains it's authority from the
Constitution.  Were a member of Congress to refuse to recognize the
holder of the Office of President it would be, IMO, contrary to their Oath
of Office. 

> If I were in the military, I'd recognize Bush's authority while still
> holding the opinion that he was not legitimately elected. Why? Because
> to be in the military you have to take an oath, and the responsiblity
> that comes with it. As an individual I'm not in that position, so it's
> two different situations. 

Yes, as you point out, you have no "sworn" duty to recognize Dubya as
your President.  IMO, to refuse to recognize him as President is, at the
very least immature and, at worst, un-patriotic.

I say un-patriotic because, if you don't recognize him as President you
consequently refuse to recognize the authority of the foundations that
hold our country together (i.e. the Constitution and the branches of
government it establishes).

> *snip*
> 
> > If you truly believe he doesn't legitimately have right to the office,
> > perhaps you should be doing more to right the injustice...
> 
> What would you suggest? Seems that most of the avenues of redress have
> been exhausted. Hey, if you can think of a viable (legal!) plan that
> might correct the situation, I'm all ears. 

Perhaps something more meaningful than, "He's not MY president."  While
that may be an exercise in free speech, it really doesn't *do* anything
to fix the terrible injustice of our country being lead by an
illegitimate President.

Had our Founding Fathers limited thier options to those deemed "legal",
we would be arguing about the King or Queen, rather than the President.
-- 

Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/