[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 10:25, Randy Arabie wrote:

*snip*
> > 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."

I don't have to. I'm already at home and my toys are all here. 

I suppose the only way I get to be "mature" in your book is to agree
with you -- because whenever there's a difference in opinion you're
quick to call it "whining" or "immature." 

> 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.

I recognize the Supreme Court's authority - I simply believe that they
called it wrong. It's entirely possible to recognize the authority of an
institution or office and disagree with the decisions made by that
authority. I recognize the ruling, but I disagree with it. 

The Supreme Court also ruled at one time that people could be property.
Was that dispute "settled" or beyond dispute at that point? I don't
think so. Even a system as well-designed as ours can have flaws. The
Supremes do blow it occasionally. The Supremes have also found that
abortion and the death penalty are legal -- should opponents of those
things just accept that or should they continue to press on with those
issues? 

I'd also point out that even the justices on the court were not
unanimous -- it was five to four in the decision that there was not a
way that the recount could take place in time. But for one swing vote,
we might have someone else in the Oval Office. 

*snip* 

> > 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. 

And if a member of Congress feels that the Constitution has been abused
in the process of choosing a President? 

> > 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).

If the only two options were the ones that you present (a logical
fallacy at best) then I'd have to go with "immature." 

I recognize the authority of the institutions -- I simply believe that
the people holding those offices screwed up in carrying out their
duties. In the case of the election in Florida, I believe there were
some things that went on that constitute election fraud. In the case of
the Supreme Court's decision, I think that the justices who voted
against a recount were wrong, but well-intentioned. 

In fact my position is based on patriotism -- I believe the process was
abused to achieve the result we now have or I wouldn't be objecting. 

*snip*

> 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.

As I said before, I believe the legal means to combat the wrong have
been exhausted. I'm open to suggestions -- right now I'm devoting most
of my political energy to opposing extensions of the DMCA and supporting
bills that will repeal the most horrific sections of the DMCA because
that seems much more productive. 

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

There's a big difference here -- Bush isn't holding the office for life.
He's holding it for four years. One way or another, I hope that the
problem will sort itself out in 2004 -- that is, I don't expect that
this particular snafu will resurface. If Bush wins the election, then
he'll be "my" president as well as "yours" as distasteful as I find the
concept. If he doesn't, then he won't. 

If Bush were attempting to take the office for life, then that would be
a different story. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net