Narrowcasting the law

There is an oversimplified breakdown of the differences between liberals and conservatives, which states that conservatives believe in a creator and the rule of law, while liberals do not. The truth is, both liberals and conservatives alike usually believe in both.

However, recently, the Republicans seem to only respect the rule of law when it benefits them. Rule of Law means that the same body of laws applies to everyone, regardless of who you are. Lately, they're shown no hesitation to rewrite the law to their own benefit.

I doubt any conservatives in here will believe that Al Gore actually had more votes in Florida, but not to worry. Assuming you don't sidetrack the argument, that's not the issue I'm bringing up here. This isn't about who got more votes in Florida, or who sent minions down to stop the recounts. It's about what happened in Florida during that time. When the fate of Florida's electoral votes was still up in the air, Tom DeLay was pushing hard to convince Congress to invalidate Florida's results if the happened to go to Gore. Had the recounts been finished and shown Gore to be the winner, DeLay would have been telling Congress to award those votes to Bush anyway.

Regardless of who you think got the Florida vote, the Supreme Court set a bad precedent, by refusing to set a precedent. They specifically stated that the ruling in Bush vs. Gore could never be used as a precedent in any future election dispute. This goes against the very principle of precedents, that being that every case sets a precedent for future cases.

The Constitution also states that every state, upon the decennial census, shall redraw its district lines to better reflect the demographics. In Texas, this was done in 2001, in accordance with the law. Democrats and Republicans couldn't agree on a map, so the Republicans brought it to court, and the lines were re-drawn by a non-partisan panel of judges--a panel given the job by the Republicans. Everyone was happy. Except Tom DeLay, who solicited funds to finance Republican campaigns in 2002, which resulted in the Republicans having a majority in Texas in 2003. Suddenly the 2001 map was no longer good enough, because judges aren't supposed to draw district boundaries. Never mind that it had been done this way in previous decades, and that the Republicans had asked them to do it this time.

Now it's coming to light that DeLay may have taken some illegal campaign contributions to push his gerrymandering through. DeLay himself set up ARMPAC and TRMPAC (Texans and American for a Republican Majority, respectively.) His underlings have been indicted on good evidence by a Travis County Grand Jury. Republican caucus rules previously required anyone indicted of a crime to step down. Now, for the sole benefit of Tom DeLay, the rule was set aside. The true rarity here is that when public pressure came to bear, this rule was re-instated. But the rule was meant to apply to any Republican indicted of a crime, as a way of claiming the moral high ground from Democrats in 1993, shortly before the "Contract with America" brought the Republicans into the majority in 1994. Suddenly, when they fear their own majority leader may be subject to the party's own rule, it is set aside solely for his benefit. This for a man who hasn't been indicted, but who claims not to be responsible for the conduct of people under his command, and who thinks there is a slippery slope from prosecuting them with valid evidence; even with the obstable of a Grand Jury; to persecuting him with false evidence--despite more and more evidence coming to light that he was directly involved in his own PAC.

In the Schiavo case, Florida law had been followed meticulously for 15 years. However, if it would result in the death of Teri Schiavo, suddenly due process under existing law isn't good enough--a new law has to be passed for the sole benefit of the Schiavo family. This isn't a broad law giving all families in this situation the right to turn to a federal court, it applies only to the Schiavo family. It won't apply to any o

 

The push to change the constitutional requirements for natural born citizens is a bi-partisan issue. For you to say that it is a Republican issue and only being pushed by Republican officials is a complete distortion. And there are many other people who could benefit from this besides Arnold. Jennifer Granholm comes to mind.

Arnold is a good example of why the law should be changed. Perhaps he was even the inspiration. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't debate that issue simply because someone may stand to gain from it.

And the notion that the GOP is doing this because they are somehow "out of candidates" for 2008 is laughable.

Even if the Republicans were pushing this issue, what does this have to do with ignoring the law? Amending the Constitiution is perfectly legal and ethically sound. A democratic society should always be able to choose, or change, the rules that govern that society through referendum.

 

You respond only to the part about presidency requirements. That tells me that either you have no argument against the rest of what I said, or you think targeting one part will discredit the rest. While it has some bipartisan support, if you think Arnold isn't the targeted beneficiary, I suggest you read the following:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/Arnold/elite_push.htm

http://gershkuntzman.homestead.com/files/Arnold_Amendment.htm

Just to review, I have also pointed out that DeLay was pushing to overrule the electoral results from Florida in 2000 if it didn't go his way, and that a rule put in place to make Republicans act responsibly in office was, however briefly, repealed for his sole benefit, so that he wouldn't have to pay the price for his gerrymandering.

I have also mentioned the Schiavo law, which exists for the sole benefit and use of the Schindler family.

Respecting the rule of law means that you follow the laws as written, rather than re-writing them at will, to the exclusive benefit of a few, when it becomes convenient. It also means that the law is applicable to, and accessible to, everyone, not just a few people that a law can be taylored to.

 

You respond only to the part about presidency requirements. That tells me that either you have no argument against the rest of what I said, or you think targeting one part will discredit the rest.

Thats right, I haven't argued against any of the rest. Try not to infer anything beyond that.

And you are still wrong. There are millions of naturalized citizens in this country that would benefit from amending Article II, Section I. I have three people in my immediate family alone. One of them is the governor of my state (not named Arnold) as well.

So that bill is tailored to millions of people, not just one. Simply because he may be the inspiration for the bill doesn't discredit the merits of the bill.

PS- The 22nd Amendment deals with Presidential term limits.