[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday, 22 April 2003 at 13:50:18 -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <clue at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> 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." 

I'm sorry to give you that impression.  Perhaps my judgement of your
position was wrong.  As I've detailed below, it seems you have a problem
distinguishing the difference between expressing your dissent and
refusing to recognize the effect(s) of judicial rulings.

> > 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. 

If you recognize the Supreme Court's authority and ruling, then you
accept the result of said ruling.  The result is that George W. Bush is
your President.  You can't have it both ways. You can't recognize the
authority of the Supreme Court, but not recognize that Dubya was
declared the winner of the election by a Supreme Court ruling.

There is a big difference in disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision
and the recognition of what it means.  You seem to miss that
distinction.

> 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'm not saying you have to agree with the decision, you don't.  But, you
do have to live with the result.  Until it is reversed (or his term is
up), Dubya is your President.

WRT the opponents of the death penalty and abortion, they are certainly
free to disagree with the Supreme Court rulings.  However, they are not
free to simply refuse to recognize them...both are legal until the
rulings are reversed or another ruling superceedes them.

> 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. 

That doesn't change the effect of their ruling.  It is certainly a
factor that could weigh into ones decision of support for or against the
ruling, but it has no bearing on the rulings effect.

> *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? 

They are free to express their dissent, they are not free to refuse to
recognize George Bush as their President.  If they believe the
Constitution has been abused, there are means at their disposal to right
that injustice.  But, Dubya is their President until the injustice is
made right.

> > > 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." 

It isn't a logical fallacy.  It is a distinction between expressing
dissent and refusing to recognize the legal consequiences of a judicial
ruling.

> 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. 

If you simply object to George Bush, then fine.  If you refuse to
recognize him as the current President then, IMO, you are being
un-patriotic by failing to recognize the authority and legitimacy of the
institutions established by the Constitution.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/