Resigning from the Senate

All that is political goes here. If the board says you don't have permission, join the Jr. Politician usergroup and then you too can share in the political discussions. Contact hypo if you have any problems accessing this fourm.

Moderators: MorGrendel, hypo

Post Reply
User avatar
MorGrendel
Warlord
Posts: 5175
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:06 pm

Resigning from the Senate

Post by MorGrendel »

So I did not give this "Obama is not an American" any credence, then I came across this little tib bit. Hilary and Biden have yet to resign from the Senate. One would think that after winning an election, and being named Secratary of State, one would want to jump into that role with both feet. Is it possible that Clarence Thomas has found something, and Obama might not actually be an American?
Mor Grendel
If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy.

Noli nothis permittere te terere.
User avatar
Berserker
Galatian Citizen
Posts: 2162
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Hanover, MD
Contact:

Re: Resigning from the Senate

Post by Berserker »

For the sake of this country, the supreme court should drop that or ignore it. If they in fact tell the people that Obama can't be president you will have the biggest riot you have ever seen. I hope you have your guns ready.
My love for you is like a truck..
ahrimen
Galatian Citizen
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:59 pm

Re: Resigning from the Senate

Post by ahrimen »

i dont know if there is any thing to it, i actualy doubt it. however if infact he was born in kenya then he is not elligable and riots or no riots the law is the law, if we selectivly pic and choose wich laws will be followed over who will and wont riot we have lost our country to mob rule. that being said a republican gov. of hawaii has had his birth cert. sealed and i dont think she is in on any conspiracy with demacrats............but stanger things have happened.
rember that the constitution out ranks any elected offical, thats why the military takes an oath to defend the constitution from all enemys forign and domestic not the president or any other elected offical. people often confuse democracy with mob rule but they are not the same, democracy has to have laws to regulate it. the difference is if you have 3 guys and 2 women and the guys call for a vote to rape the women all 3 men vote yea and both women vote nay. that is mob rule, not democracy.
It’s not arrogance when you’ve bled for it.
Ahrimen Rex - Former Warlord of Galatia
Rachel
Galatian Citizen
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:10 pm
Location: Frederick
Contact:

Re: Resigning from the Senate

Post by Rachel »

Dan, I laughed, a lot, when I read your post there.

Although I could take this in a far more absurd direction than you already did just to make a point, instead I will say, that would indeed be democracy & if the women then killed the men to protect their chastity, that would be more.. mobish.. I belive you are using "mob rules" as synonomous to "tyrany of the majority" (if you don't know this term, look up John Stewart Mills essay on liberty) which is a known shortall of any democratic system and I don't know what point stating that makes... we actualy do not have a democracy, a representative democracy is not quite the same, and our representative democracy was created in part to safeguard from such shortfalls as tyrany of the majority. So the real question is, would the vote of the people to have a presedent not born on US soil consitute tyrany of the majority if allowed, or relflect a shift in the will of the people, theirfor charging the lawmakes who theoretically represent and are empowered by the people with the respocibility of updating the law, or at least construcing amendments to be voted on to determine the issue seperatly.

Usualy tyrany of the majority only applys to things so agrevious as to be unquestionably wrong (such as rape...) as to be clear that even if the will of the majority legally permissifyed the action, based on other criteria it would still be morraly incorrect. So then your example poses the question, is there ever any circumstance in which the act of rape is morraly permissable? If and only if you can answer that question with a resounding No would the perpetration of this action warrent the classification tyrany of the majority.

From Mills on Liberty, "There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism" (2) I do not belive allowing a US presedent to be elected and inogurated who was not born on US soil does violate that limit of legitimate interference such as legalizing rape would!

I'd like to know by your methodology, when sailors stranded at sea draw straws to see who will be killed and eaten to enable the rest prolonged life and a shot at salvation, and then proceed to kill one of their companions, even though after the lottery the loser protests, is that "mob rues" or "democracy?" This hypothetical, instead of rape, poses the quesion is it ever morraly permissable to murder?

Have you ever seen the childs movie "The Point." From your quote "the law is the law" I think you could take away meaningful insight from it...

anyhow, thats a logical fallay -"begging the question," (1) or.. avoiding adressing the issue at hand, should the man who won the vote, popular and electoral, be permitted to be presedent? moreover, A=A, An apples an apple! convinced? no kidding. (would you eat a rotten apple just beause its an apple? maybe if someone left out the premis that the apple was rotten when they set out to persuade you to eat it...)


Cited...
1) http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
2) http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
Post Reply