[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Jan 7 23:53:11 CST 2009
The Declaration of Independence is the Charter document for these United
States. If you invalidate that the whole thing falls apart, because it
is the foundation.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the By-laws.
Your "America" does not appear to be the same as mine.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Wayne,
>
>
>
> Please read your history and other documents like the Federalist
> Papers. The debate that went on at the Constitutional Convention was
> not merely about how Senators were to be apportioned; it had to do a
> compromise in which Senators and the Senate would represent the states
> as sovereign entities in a federal form of government while the House
> of Representatives and the Representatives would represent the
> citizenry (i.e., the people who were citizens and eligible to vote
> under the Constitution which was not everyone but mainly the landed
> white male gentry and propertied white middle class males). As part
> of the compromise, to avoid disparities in geographic and population
> sizes between the individual states, it was decided that each state
> would have two Senators to represent the state. It was only much
> later with the expansion of the franchise and suffrage and move away
> from political party conventions as the determiners of who would run
> as a candidate for Senator that the Senators began to represent the
> people of a state; but even then they legally had as their constituent
> district the whole state at large and not specific districts within a
> state.
>
>
>
> I am afraid that what see as their duty (e.g., "...their duty to be
> of the people by the people for the people") is at best a misplaced
> slogan. First, it comes from the Declaration of Independence, which
> does not address the architecture of the form of government to be
> used, and not the Constitution, which does address the architectural
> form of government and its operation. Secondly, nowhere in the
> constitution - or for that matter the Declaration of Independence --
> does it specify or state that a Senator's duty is to be of the people
> by the people or for the people. This was a function of government in
> general according to the Declaration of Independence. Thirdly, it is
> an open question if the founding fathers were using "people" in a
> figurative or a literal sense, what they actually meant by " the
> people," and who they saw as being "the people." It is also
> questionable if the founding fathers meant by this phrasing virtual
> representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to act in
> what they viewed as the best interest of the community at large)or
> actual representation (someone who was selected by whatever means to
> carry out the will of the voting majority in accordance with some
> polling survey). The mere fact that they warned of "tyranny of the
> majority" and instituted all kind of checks and balances to protect
> against tyranny of the majority (i.e., "mobocracy" or mob rule)
> suggests that they viewed representation as being more of a virtual
> sort than an actual "bean counting" sort.
>
>
>
> It appears that you and many others have given a over-simplified and
> popularized interpretation to the notions of "the People" and
> "representation."
>
>
>
> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:24 PM
> *To:* LAURIE SOLOMON
> *Cc:* jencart13 at yahoo.com; 'peace discuss'; 'C. G. Estabrook'
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>
>
>
> Laurie, please note that the senators also represent the people. It
> is only the apportionment of them that is different from Representatives.
> The method of allocation of the numbers of senators or representatives
> doesnt change the charge of their duty to be of the people by the
> people for the people.
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Get real! The system never paid any attention to The People; it paid
> attention to an elite segment of some of the people. Who are these
> unnamed "They"? If the masses allow themselves to be persuaded and
> sold a bill of goods which they believe and then act on by casting
> their votes for someone or some policy position no matter who or what
> it is, who the hell are you to say that this is not representative
> democracy, is not how the system of representative democracy works or
> should work, and not a representation of the people.
>
>
>
> You happen to be wrong. U.S. Senators are suppose to be
> representatives of the individual states and not the people, which is
> why each state gets two senators no matter what their geographic or
> population sizes. It is the House of Representatives that is supposed
> to represent the people, which is why Representatives are apportioned
> according to population and not geography.
>
>
>
> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *E.
> Wayne Johnson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:28 PM
> *To:* jencart13 at yahoo.com <mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss; C. G. Estabrook
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>
>
>
>
> The system is broken and it doesn't pay any attention to the people.
>
> They gave you 2 worthless choices
>
> - McCain (Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran)
> - O-bomb-a (Yes We Can - Bomb Iran.)
>
> They don't care which of those 2 you elect, because both of them are
> almost exactly same thing,
> and somehow they get the masses to believe that some how one or the
> other is significantly different.
>
> >>>And regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel about the
> situation, Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and then he needs
> to be seated.
>
> The Senator is supposed to be a representative of the people
> and Blagojevich is a out-of-control Nero,
> a Joker mocking the hapless people of Illinois.
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> The "problem" is that we have this Innocent-until-proven-guilty thing
> that (supposedly) applies to everyone -- our enemies as well as our
> friends. Blago hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and may never be
> -- other than bragging and swagger (which seem to be required for
> politicians), unless somebody can prove he actually made/accepted
> a specific offer. And regardless of how IL residents (and others) feel
> about the situation, Burris needs to get his paperwork sorted and
> then he needs to be seated. (And at some point, Blago needs to resign
> To Spend More Time With His Family.)
>
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Wed, 1/7/09, Ricky Baldwin /<baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 11:30 AM
>
> True that selling a Senate seat is not much of a crime compared
> to making aggressive war, particularly against civilians.
> However, I don't think it counts for much that our illustrious
> governor hasn't yet been convicted, as you point out - after all,
> neither has Bush - or Obama. (Obama hasn't even been inaugurated
> yet, after which we *fear* that he *may* "kill thousands" -
> and while it can be argued that his relative inaction has allowed
> the deaths of many thousands, and we would have wanted him to
> fight for the anti-war mantle he at times claimed, that's just not
> the same as being a "blood-spattered con-man" I think.
>
>
>
> It might be more like a politician who doesn't measure up to our
> expectations - imagine that - but in this case one who may
> represent an opening to make some gains, at times moderate, at
> times marginal, with any luck on occasion significant gains, on
> various fronts, but only if we organize to make it happen.
>
>
>
> It is also true that it is hard to "fill the streets" for much of
> anything. It's a lot easier to complain that we aren't doing it,
> I have to say. But even if we do try and fail to organize mass
> protests, it's more useful to analyze why specific efforts fail
> and other succeed than to simply dismiss the efforts of others.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think Just Foreign Policy has some worthy campaigns
> going on - to try to block any attacks on Iran, for example. At
> the moment, MoveOn - though most of us are not usually fans - has
> a good project to rally Obama supporters to push the most
> "progressive" agenda possible. It's a good idea. Organized labor
> and other groups are all pushing what they think they can, and
> many of these efforts seem to me to be worth our support - with
> some glaring exceptions, like that nonsense I shared earlier about
> "partitioning Iraq" or whatever.
>
>
>
> There are promises that Obama made, like closing Guantanamo Bay,
> and rhetoric he used, about "diplomacy" for example,
> that organizers can use to rally for bigger and better causes,
> expanding on these ideas to call for, e.g. closing *all* bases
> like Gitmo and the fmr. SOA, etc. And there are ideas where Obama
> has been "inactive" - like the Israeli occupation and aggression
> against the Palestinian people - that need our efforts as well.
> This Saturday at noon there is a rally against Isareli aggression
> in Gaza. The Mosque had a meeting last night to plan local
> response to these attacks. AWARE is planning an event for the
> local MLK Day activities. These are all worthy efforts. And if
> we still have energy, and feel that more should be done, we can
> meet together with people and plan more.
>
>
> But simply to dismiss the lack of effort, paint Obama with a wide
> brush, or accuse the antiwar movement of being coopted without
> backing that up, just doesn't help anything, in my opinion. But
> now i'm repeating myself.
>
>
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>
> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 4, 2009 12:02:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus
>
> Yes, and, with the happy accident of the BBC (I like your coinage
> of "Blago-Burris circus"), Illinois continues to supply a
> distraction from the real political situation, as it did during
> the presidential (non-)election.
>
> Consider two Illinois politicians. One may be guilty of nothing
> more than bad language and politics as usual: he's been convicted
> of nothing, and -- innocent until proven guilty -- has exercised
> his legal responsibility to appoint a senator. (I should think
> that Illinoisans would be more miffed at the Senate's intention to
> disregard our legal procedures.) He hasn't even been accused of
> killing anybody, or even planning to.
>
> The other Illinois politician is publicly planning to kill
> thousands, and by his inaction has allowed the killing of hundreds
> this week alone by thugs paid by our government. But we're not
> planning to fill the streets to prevent the public celebration of
> the inauguration of this blood-spattered con-man. Our dismay is
> displaced onto the pathetic governor. As he might say, fuck that...
>
> --CGE
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > Couple of even more annoying developments, from Nick Burbules's
> excellent
> > news roundup ...
> >
> > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/3/94832/93890/631/679744
> >
> > http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/1/3/19577/93035
> >
> > And even the most superficial overview of Burris's past seems to
> suggest that
> > his current level of opportunism is par for the course, e.g.:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris
> >
> > Are we really going to have to start the Obama Administration
> arguing over
> > non-issues like, "He's just a sneaky Chicago politician like that
> Blago and
> > Burris..." or "lynching" Burris, or (as someone shouted at last
> month's demo)
> > the claim that Obama is a Muslim [as if that were a problem, but
> of course he
> > isn't, followed by:] "Oh, yeah? Then why'd he change his name
> to a Muslim
> > name? [cue the sound of truck engine zooming away]" - or better
> yet, "Good
> > luck with the Magic Negro," or whatever????
> >
> > Don't we have enough problems to try to sort out, you know, with
> depression
> > looming and huge tracts of the planet drowning in blood, for example?
> >
> > Ricky
> >
> > "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Peace-discuss mailing list
>
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090107/f52b21b4/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list