Say hello to our new Commander in Chief...

[PaulR]

by the look of things it is President Select Obama! :(

At this point, all there is to do is to salute and return to work.

[FeelinFroggy]

Looks like I'll be out of work soon.

Is anywhere hiring?

[armysc_25b]

Now looking: Job in the IT field. If interested in soon-to-be former servicemember with 3+ years experience in field, please contact armysc_25b.

[PaulR]

Well, I am sure that you will be gainfully employed when our new CIC re directs all of our assets to Afghanistan or to staging areas for the invasion of Pakistan.

[PaulR]

Now looking: Job in the IT field. If interested in soon-to-be former servicemember with 3+ years experience in field, please contact armysc_25b.

Holy crap!! You got five Achievement medals in three years? Either you are a super hero or I am doing something wrong!

I made Corpsman of the Year for the entire branch of service as well as a few other Achievements and only got an Achievement medal as an end of tour award. I feel cheated! LOL (attempt at humor here!).

[MP_Girl]

Oi..I'm so sick of people rubbing it in that Obama won..it makes me sick just thinking about this..

[PaulR]

Well, now the that politicing is over and the wave of disappointment has swept over us, it is now time for to swallow our feelings and do what we are paid to do. This includes publically supporting our Commander in Chief 100%. We did what we could... there is always next time!

[armysc_25b]

Holy crap!! You got five Achievement medals in three years? Either you are a super hero or I am doing something wrong!

I made Corpsman of the Year for the entire branch of service as well as a few other Achievements and only got an Achievement medal as an end of tour award. I feel cheated! LOL (attempt at humor here!).

I'm in an award happy unit...

1st award: PCS
2nd award: BN Soldier of the Month
3rd award: Group Soldier of the Quarter
4th award: Post Soldier of the Quarter
5th award: Group Soldier of the Year participation

Humor is always good, I chuckled after "Holy crap!" LOL

[PhoenixCadet]

Well - hopefully he'll be out by the time I'm able to commission (if the military even finds me medically qualified). :(

[BronzeGoat]

Well, there's nothing for it. I'm retreating to my bombshelter. Then I'm going to set off the charges and blow my house down on the hatch. Someone radio me in four years to tell me whether I should come out.

Who am I kidding? I could never go AWOL. But I could get three consecutive overseas tours...Korea, Germany, Japan...hey, this could work!:satisfied:

Oh, and we still have a couple of months before he is the Commander in Chief.

[soccermark23]

Good thing my enlistment is up in December.

[FeelinFroggy]

Now that my bitterness has subsided and I've had some time to cool down.

I will support our soon-to-be new President with my life.

And thank God this is all over.

[BronzeGoat]

Sorry, that seems like a bit much. I support the person that is president, but I support the United States of America with my life.

[FeelinFroggy]

Sorry, that seems like a bit much. I support the person that is president, but I support the United States of America with my life.As do I. One must support our leader in order to support our country.

[BronzeGoat]

The difference is the whole "support the president with my life" part. A guy doesn't have to support the president with his life to do the same for his country.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Of course, the Oath doesn't explicitly say anything about dying for your country or your president. In either case, I think Patton said it best, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Of course, that was George C. Scott playing as Patton, but it works just the same. If it can't be proven General Patton said it I'm sure he would have if he'd thought of it.

I think at the least we can agree on is that Barack Obama will be President of the United States and Commander in Chief, a fact we'll all have to live with, however bilious.

[FeelinFroggy]

Agreed. Although I never said anything about dying for my President, or my country for that matter(though I gladly would). I said I would support him with my life. Interpretation on that statement may vary from person to person.

[HairyEyeball]

There's no 'interpretation' necessary: "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God(emphasis added)."

If the President of the United States becomes an enemy of the country or Constitution, he is an enemy to be 'defended against'. If an order given by the President or any officer or NCO is an illegal order, or violates the UCMJ, there is no obligation to obey it - in fact, one is obligated, both legally and morally, to refuse.

In practical terms, that would require more soul-searching and immediate sacrifice than most here are willing to commit to, including a request for such order in writing and signed, but the oath we took is very clear as to where our loyalties lie - as are the consequences of either obeying or refusing.

[PaulR]

Oh, and we still have a couple of months before he is the Commander in Chief.

Yes... and I will savor every moment of "freedom" too! :D

As a child, I knew I was in for a belt a$$ whipping when I heard my mother tell me, "Just you wait until your father comes home...". I would sit in my room watching the second hand tick on the clock, waiting the hour and a half until he pulled into the driveway. Every second was torture, knowing that I was in for it... For some reason, I am feeling the very same way now!

With that being said, I plan on giving President Obama the best four years of service I can possibly offer.

[ang1sgt]

The LARGER issue here is that the Democrats held most of their seats and ADDED some ones too. That means they have the control and the power to effect the changes THEY want to make and not necessarily the ones WE the People want them to make. I feel sorry for those in Uniform and for the Country as a whole.

This is just "MY" opinion which I am still free to make at least at this point in my life.

GOD....Please Bless America!

[SlightlyCatholic]

This passage from Matthew's Gospel could be a great reflection for all of our Christians here on Grunt's:

15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

[soccermark23]

I think Ted Nugent said it best concerning Obama being elected President and the number of Democrats elected to other positions in Washington.

It's gonna be a target rich environment.

[dukesix]

Still kinda close here in Missouri. Not much good news out there right now. Although the popular vote was a bit closer than I thought it would be...some hope there. On a personal note..a good friend of mine was elected Sheriff of Holt County, Missouri....a Republican.

It looks as if Al Franken will go down to defeat in Minnesota as well. There are some people with sense in Mn.

This is how close the Presidential race was in Missouri....as of 1052 HRS,Nov-5th-2008.

U.S. President And Vice President Precincts Reporting 3533 of 3533
John McCain, Sarah Palin REP 1,442,613 49.4%
Barack Obama, Joe Biden DEM 1,436,745 49.2%

Bob Barr, Wayne A. Root LIB 11,355 .4%
Chuck Baldwin, Darrell Castle CST 8,181 .3%
Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez IND 17,769 .6%
Cynthia McKinney, Rosa Clemente WI 958 .0%

Dukesix

[FeelinFroggy]

If the President of the United States becomes an enemy of the country or Constitution, he is an enemy to be 'defended against'. If an order given by the President or any officer or NCO is an illegal order, or violates the UCMJ, there is no obligation to obey it - in fact, one is obligated, both legally and morally, to refuse.

Well, no shit Hairy. Would it suit all of you better if I said I would "support the President" and exclude the "life" part? Or maybe, I will obey the Presidents orders as long as those orders obey the Constitution. Heck, lets break down my statement and give an expert analysis while we're at it.

[HairyEyeball]

At ease, Froggy - you know it, I know it, and most of the Veterans on the board know it (especially the older ones, who went to schools where we were educated, not indoctrinated). It's obvious from the tenor of some posts in the thread that there are those who don't. Either you missed that part, or you feel the need to raise your hackles - either way, 'knowing' something is not the same as conveying it to those who need to know it.

As to 'dying for' anything, there's nothing explicit in the oath, it's implicit in the act of taking it - and anyone who doesn't realize the possibility when he raises his hand to take it obviously isn't fully prepared to make that commitment.

[FeelinFroggy]

Agreed. Maybe some of my bitterness remains seeing that I voted the opposite way of Obama. I guess I just want to will myself to like my President, however impossible it may seem to me now.

[dukesix]

Hey, maybe there is some hope. Perhaps we can convince Vice-President Cheney to take Barack Obama bird hunting!

Dukesix

[03_SHOOTER]

As do I. One must support our leader in order to support our country.

No, one must "...support and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES..." in order to support our country. Supporting POTUS is strictly optional, and subject to his EARNING that support.

You may have to follow his orders just like you would any knuckle-headed butter-bar 2nd Lt., but that does not mean you have to "support" him.

[FeelinFroggy]

I ducked out of this conversation long ago my friend. No need to tell me what I'm fighting for or what I'm supporting.

[03_SHOOTER]

I ducked out of this conversation long ago my friend. No need to tell me what I'm fighting for or what I'm supporting.

Normally I wouldn't, but over the past few years I've heard entirely too many young SSAM's confuse their Oath to support the Constitution with their loyalty to the CiC. No insult was intended.

[PhilK]

Just some food for thought, here is the Oath of Enlistment:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

And here is the oath of office that Army Officers take:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Source: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

I find it interesting that while there is a re-affirming of the supporting and defending of the Constitution, there is nothing about following the orders of the President or Officers appointed over them.

Just something to chit chat about.

[PaulR]

I ducked out of this conversation long ago my friend. No need to tell me what I'm fighting for or what I'm supporting.

Well said!:flag:

[Ben Shotalot]

Looks like I'll be out of work soon.

Is anywhere hiring?


I think you will find that those in our business (Spec Ops) will have more work now, more than ever. It is the large army on the ground that will go away, only because it looks imperialistic. We will still be there, fighting a war, harder, with less logistic support, a larger AO, and little back up. Good luck to us.

:recon:

[03_SHOOTER]

I think you will find that those in our business (Spec Ops) will have more work now, more than ever. It is the large army on the ground that will go away, only because it looks imperialistic. We will still be there, fighting a war, harder, with less logistic support, a larger AO, and little back up. Good luck to us.

:recon:

Aw, come on Ben, quitcherbitchin', that's why you guys get the gold Rolex's, and all the pretty girls! :D

[HairyEyeball]

I think you will find that those in our business (Spec Ops) will have more work now, more than ever. It is the large army on the ground that will go away, only because it looks imperialistic. We will still be there, fighting a war, harder, with less logistic support, a larger AO, and little back up. Good luck to us.

:recon:

Dunno as I'd count on that, given the antipathy of the prospective coward-in-chief toward the military and his purported sympathy for our enemies. Wouldn't advise any slacking off on training or shortages of ammo and gear, though - a lot may have to be done 'independently' and 'the director' will have to deny knowlege because he'll have none...and not all will require a lot of travel.

[Javelin66]

Just some food for thought, here is the Oath of Enlistment:

And here is the oath of office that Army Officers take:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Source: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

I find it interesting that while there is a re-affirming of the supporting and defending of the Constitution, there is nothing about following the orders of the President or Officers appointed over them.

Just something to chit chat about.

That is because commissioned officers are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the president. If an officer feels he cannot support the president, then he is duty bound to resign his commission (as did R.E. Lee and others you may have heard of). This is also why commissioned officers are barred from speech that is 'contemptuous' of the president.

Keep in mind that you can be compelled to serve as an enlisted soldier (in the event of a draft), but you cannot be compelled to accept a commission.

[03_SHOOTER]

That is because commissioned officers are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the president. If an officer feels he cannot support the president, then he is duty bound to resign his commission (as did R.E. Lee and others you may have heard of). This is also why commissioned officers are barred from speech that is 'contemptuous' of the president.

Keep in mind that you can be compelled to serve as an enlisted soldier (in the event of a draft), but you cannot be compelled to accept a commission.

I've been hearing from a few guys around here that they will be resigning rather than serve under Barry 'O', and more than a few EM's that are submitting their paperwork as well. What's strange is that it doesn't seem to be meeting with much resistance from their CoC.

[PaulR]

I've been hearing from a few guys around here that they will be resigning rather than serve under Barry 'O', and more than a few EM's that are submitting their paperwork as well. What's strange is that it doesn't seem to be meeting with much resistance from their CoC.

That is because he is planning on significantly cutting the military anyway to come up with some extra pocket change to initiate his "master plan". People getting out only helps him!;)

(being completely sarcastic here)

[FeelinFroggy]

I think you will find that those in our business (Spec Ops) will have more work now, more than ever. It is the large army on the ground that will go away, only because it looks imperialistic. We will still be there, fighting a war, harder, with less logistic support, a larger AO, and little back up. Good luck to us.

:recon: Let us hope we won't be asked to trade in our mags, frags, and suppressors for good manners and ink pens though. We don't negotiate.

[c/ltdan2192]

I was going to enlist in the Marine Corps in January, but I think now that he's been elected I'll wait four years and try for a commission.

[C/Msgt.wraith]

I was thinking about military service after high school (Marines in particular), but I don't know now since Obama will be President.

[PaulR]

WOW!! That is the craziest line of BS I have heard... You are not enlisting to serve Obama... you would be volunteering to defend the Constitution and the people of the United States. :mad:

[RedBeard]

Last edited by HairyEyeball; 11-24-2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason: basic functional semiliteracy

I mean this sincerely, HE you are my hero!

[Skylark]

The LARGER issue here is that the Democrats held most of their seats and ADDED some ones too. That means they have the control and the power to effect the changes THEY want to make and not necessarily the ones WE the People want them to make.

How do you figure? Weren't they voted into their offices by a majority of their constituents in a free and open election? Seems pretty legit to me.

Hey, maybe there is some hope. Perhaps we can convince Vice-President Cheney to take Barack Obama bird hunting!

Dukesix

Not so cool bro. I know you're just joking, but I've seen guys catch some serious flak for less.

[03_SHOOTER]

How do you figure? Weren't they voted into their offices by a majority of their constituents in a free and open election? Seems pretty legit to me.

That's because Democrats talk out both sides of their face (read LIE), and ROUTINELY pass laws that violate the Constitution. Do you want Congress to pass Bills, and Barry O to sign them into law those things that are repugnant to the Constitution?

[PhilK]

That's because Democrats talk out both sides of their face (read LIE), and ROUTINELY pass laws that violate the Constitution. Do you want Congress to pass Bills, and Barry O to sign them into law those things that are repugnant to the Constitution?

And Republicans don't?

C'mon Shooter neither side is clean in these affairs.

When I was in college I was surrounded by people who were so convinced that "their side" was right and the other was wrong. I had a wise professor say to them one day: "You pick 5 Democrats and you pick 5 Republicans and we will put them in a bag and shake it up. I'll pull one out and looking only at their records you won't be able to tell what side they are on."

We would then get his lecture on the importance of third parties and why our system needed to be re-vamped to make third parties a real possibility.

[Skylark]

That's because Democrats talk out both sides of their face (read LIE), and ROUTINELY pass laws that violate the Constitution. Do you want Congress to pass Bills, and Barry O to sign them into law those things that are repugnant to the Constitution?

Well that's just silly. Of course I wouldn't want Barrack Obama to sign laws that are against the Constitution, just like I wouldn't want John McCain to do the same, or didn't like it when Bush did it, or if Kerry or Gore had done it, or Bob Dole, etc. etc. Come on, shooter.

[03_SHOOTER]

And Republicans don't?

C'mon Shooter neither side is clean in these affairs.

When I was in college I was surrounded by people who were so convinced that "their side" was right and the other was wrong. I had a wise professor say to them one day: "You pick 5 Democrats and you pick 5 Republicans and we will put them in a bag and shake it up. I'll pull one out and looking only at their records you won't be able to tell what side they are on."

We would then get his lecture on the importance of third parties and why our system needed to be re-vamped to make third parties a real possibility.

"C'mon" nothing. Take a look at what happened the last time we had a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, or need I remind you of the "Black gun ban" which resulted in not only a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, but such a convoluted law that if you took a broomstick, and taped a 30 round magazine, a pistol grip, and a bayonet lug to it, you could be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and sent to a Federal Prison for at least 5 years? That law stood for 10 years, and had it not been for a Republican President, and a Republican Congress, it would STILL be the "law of the land".

As Lewis Black put it, (paraphrasing here) "the Democrats are the Party of bad ideas, and the Republicans are the party of no ideas, but nothing is worse than when the two Parties work together", so nobody can dispute that once Republican Congresscritters get inside the beltway, most of their high ideals go straight down the tubes, but Democrats are elected by their constituents on a promise to violate their Oaths of Office before they even get there!! Just take a look at what "the Messiah" campaigned on. Time after time, he PROUDLY campaigned on his promise to violate the Constitution, and the Sheeple gladly chugged the Kool-Aid as if it were Holy Water, and voted for a completely unqualified Marxist, racist, Junior Senator, from one of the most politically corrupt States in the Union, to be POTUS of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet because he was going to "change"....something, and he was conspicuously vague about what he was going to "change". This election was complete vindication of one of my Grandfathers favorite maxims; "most people are entirely too stupid to realize exactly how stupid they really are".

If ever there was better evidence of the need for the various States to institute some form of mandatory testing before allowing their citizens the privilege of voting, I've not seen one.

[03_SHOOTER]

Well that's just silly. Of course I wouldn't want Barrack Obama to sign laws that are against the Constitution, just like I wouldn't want John McCain to do the same, or didn't like it when Bush did it, or if Kerry or Gore had done it, or Bob Dole, etc. etc. Come on, shooter.

Non responsive to the original premise. The premise was whether or not they were going to institute the "change" that "they" want, or the change that We The People want, and when Democrats run, and get elected on lies, obfuscation, equivocation, prevarication and sophistry, are you seriously going to expect me to believe that once they get to DC that they're going to "come to Jesus"? As I stated above, the fact that they ran on promises to violate their Oaths of Office, before they even take that Oath, should be all the proof that anyone even remotely familiar with the Constitution needs to realize that they are going to do exactly what THEY want to do, regardless of what we want, or the Constitution demands.

[PhilK]

If ever there was better evidence of the need for the various States to institute some form of mandatory testing before allowing their citizens the privilege of voting, I've not seen one.

And who is to determine who is "intelligent enough" to vote?

Who will create this test so only the "elite" can vote?

Will we stop giving citizenship to those born in this nation until they pass a test?

I don't like the road this train of thought can lead us down.

[03_SHOOTER]

And who is to determine who is "intelligent enough" to vote?

The same people who allow you to vote, your State. Anyone who can pass the test can vote, if you can't, you can't, it's just that simple.

Who will create this test so only the "elite" can vote?

Again, the same people who allow you to vote, your State.

Oh, and save the "elite" canards for the vacuous "proletariat". If you're (that's a general "you're") one of the ones that scored a 46% on the recent Civics test, or one of Sean Hannity's "man on the street" self identified Obama supporters who doesn't know which party currently controls Congress, don't know who Barney Frank, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi are, who hadn't been paying enough attention to know that it was "The Messiah" (the one they had just voted for) who made the slip of the tongue saying that he'd been to 57 States, but who knew for a fact that Sarah Palin's daughter was pregnant, who think that the blatantly Marxist idea of "spreading the wealth around" is a good idea, who don't know who wrote the Declaration of Independence, who don't know what the 13 stripes on the Flag stand for, and all of the other questions that were asked of them, THEY have NO business being allowed anywhere NEAR a polling place!

mm1KOBMg1Y8

Frankly, IMNSHO, if you cannot answer, in essay form (no "multiple choice") who the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro Tempore of the Senate, BOTH of your US Senators, your US Representative, your Governor, your Lt. Governor, your State Senator, your State Representative, your Mayor/County Commissioner, your City/County Representative are, and a few other basic simple Civics questions, then you shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR a polling place, because frankly, you're entirely too willfully ignorant to be allowed to participate in the political process. It's no different than having to pass a test to be able to operate a motor vehicle on the streets of your State, and while if you screw up in your car you can kill yourself and maybe someone else, if you screw up at the polls, you can kill the COUNTRY!

Will we stop giving citizenship to those born in this nation until they pass a test?

What does citizenship have to do with voting? Are you under the impression that there is some "right" to vote in America?

I don't like the road this train of thought can lead us down.

I don't see why not, it's a lot more "liberal" that what existed in the first "four score and seven years" of our nation. In fact, unless you were a white, male, educated, property owning, and Protestant, you weren't allowed to vote in Virginia until at least the 1830's, and there was no test you could take whereby you could be allowed to vote. All of the other States had similar requirements that had to be met in order to be allowed the privilege of voting because they realized that doing so was one of the most important decisions that an American can make, and if you messed it up, you were messing up our nation.

[PhilK]

The same people who allow you to vote, your State. Anyone who can pass the test can vote, if you can't, you can't, it's just that simple.


So, a group of people I may or may not have voted for are going to devise a test that I have to pass to participate in the election process in order to elect people who are supposed to represent me at various levels of government.

Pardon me if I don't think it is that simple.


If you're (that's a general "you're") one of the ones that scored a 46% on the recent Civics test,

And yet that includes the elected officials that you want to develop the test that you take to be able to vote.

Frankly, IMNSHO, if you cannot answer, in essay form (no "multiple choice") who the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro Tempore of the Senate, BOTH of your US Senators, your US Representative, your Governor, your Lt. Governor, your State Senator, your State Representative, your Mayor/County Commissioner, your City/County Representative are, and a few other basic simple Civics questions, then you shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR a polling place, because frankly, you're entirely too willfully ignorant to be allowed to participate in the political process.

Then I am "willfully" ignorant. I could not tell you the Speaker of the House, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, my County Commissioner or my city reps (we only have at large positions). While I try my best to keep abreast of local, state and national issues I am on TDY so much that I can not always get a daily dose of news, and when I am at home my time is divided between my family and my studies.

Come election time I do familiarize myself with the "hot topics" and base my decisions on that.

But according to you...I shouldn't even bother.

So, since I am not good enough to vote, should I just accept whatever the "deciding class" decides is best for me?

[HairyEyeball]

It's hardly a question of 'intelligence' - or 'elitism' - Phil. Are you comfortable with the fact that a huge number of supposedly legal voters enter the polls with no concept beyond press 'coverage' of who the candidates are or what they stand for, with merely the vaguest concept of what the 'issues' may be, and 'require' their ballots be printed in 'their' language, not the common language of the republic? Are you comfortable with the fact that thanks to 'motor voter' legislation, many of those currently casting ballots are not citizens, and are not necessarily residents of any state in which they cast those ballots?

Granted, just as with any law or requirement, there exists the possibility of misuse or 'selective administration', but there needs to be a requirement greater than mere sentience (except, of course, in Chicago) for the privilege of voting.

And whatever 'book learning' he may have had, your professor was an idiot - academic doublespeak cannot disguise the fact that while multiple parties may coexist and form nebulous and changing coalitions under a parliamentary system, that is not the form of government we have. Beyond this, the labels - or 'sides' - he referenced were not necessarily accurate, at least insofar as the individuals so self-described: Declaring one may be a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' does not necessarily imply any comprehension of what the terms, as generally intended by the founders of the respective parties, represent. Under our Constitution, regardless of 'party labels', one faction is essentially 'federalist', or pro-big government, the other 'antifederalist', favoring smaller government, lower taxes, and individual responsibility. In that respect, a lifelong Democrat like Zell Miller is as antifederalist as arch-Republican Barry Goldwater.

The question, Skylark, is not whether the self-admitted racist, socialist empty suit 'will sign unconstitutional laws', or whether a statist legislature will railroad them through. The question, rather, is how did we reach the point where these people were allowed - and I use the term advisedly - to promulgate their treasonous - and I use that term advisedly - platforms, and how the voting public was stupid - or indoctrinated - enough to 'buy into' them. The question is whether when such laws are enacted, and they will be, how many of us who have read and understood the Constitution, and take our oath to protect and defend it and the country against all enemies foreign and domestic - no matter how long ago administered - will refuse to obey them. The question is whether those conspiring to undermine and overthrow the remains of the Constitution will be held accountable.

[PhilK]

Are you comfortable with the fact that a huge number of supposedly legal voters enter the polls with no concept beyond press 'coverage' of who the candidates are or what they stand for, with merely the vaguest concept of what the 'issues' may be, and 'require' their ballots be printed in 'their' language, not the common language of the republic? Are you comfortable with the fact that thanks to 'motor voter' legislation, many of those currently casting ballots are not citizens, and are not necessarily residents of any state in which they cast those ballots?


Of course not, but on the same token I am not comfortable with a select few deciding who represents me in government.

And whatever 'book learning' he may have had, your professor was an idiot - academic doublespeak cannot disguise the fact that while multiple parties may coexist and form nebulous and changing coalitions under a parliamentary system, that is not the form of government we have.

First off, you do not know my professor, so I would appreciate you keeping your assumptions to yourself in regards to him. I have a great deal of respect for the man and he taught me a great deal about not being a sheep and developing my own thoughts on issues.

You are correct, we do not have a praliamentary government, yet what are we supposed to do when niether of the "parties" that we are to choose from offer a true representation of the people they are to represent?

Beyond this, the labels - or 'sides' - he referenced were not necessarily accurate, at least insofar as the individuals so self-described: Declaring one may be a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' does not necessarily imply any comprehension of what the terms, as generally intended by the founders of the respective parties, represent. Under our Constitution, regardless of 'party labels', one faction is essentially 'federalist', or pro-big government, the other 'antifederalist', favoring smaller government, lower taxes, and individual responsibility. In that respect, a lifelong Democrat like Zell Miller is as antifederalist as arch-Republican Barry Goldwater.

Whatever terms he used, the idea is the same. Whether a person calls themselves a Democract or a Republican on the ticket (since there is no federalist or anti-federalist "party") the lines have become so blurred that you can no longer determine what a person stands for simply by what party they run under.

[03_SHOOTER]

So, a group of people I may or may not have voted for are going to devise a test that I have to pass to participate in the election process in order to elect people who are supposed to represent me at various levels of government.

Pardon me if I don't think it is that simple.

Using your logic, since I didn't vote for "the Messiah", am I not to recognize his position as POTUS? It doesn't matter if you voted for them or not, they are the people who allow you the privilege of voting, therefore they already possess the authority to decide who they will and will not allow to vote, provided that such restrictions are not based on race, sex, or age (provided that they are in fact over 18). Would you want a bunch of grade schoolers deciding where you're going to go, what your load out is going to be, and what you're going to do on your next combat patrol? I wouldn't, and I sure don't want a bunch of ignorant morons deciding who my President is going to be (OOPS, too late! :devil: )

And yet that includes the elected officials that you want to develop the test that you take to be able to vote.

Perhaps in the case of YOUR elected representatives, but the ones that I voted for are capable of passing the test, because I personally took the time to speak to them before deciding if I would vote for them.

Then I am "willfully" ignorant. I could not tell you the Speaker of the House, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, my County Commissioner or my city reps (we only have at large positions). While I try my best to keep abreast of local, state and national issues I am on TDY so much that I can not always get a daily dose of news, and when I am at home my time is divided between my family and my studies.

Sir, with all due respect, that sounds like an excuse, and not a very good one at that. You can find out who your elected representative are with a simple web-search (if you don't have the time, send me a PM with the address of the nearest store to you and I'll be more than happy to look them up for you), and a mere few moments a day for a couple of weeks while you're spending time with your family, and you'll know it just as well as you do the procedure for field stripping your weapon.

Come election time I do familiarize myself with the "hot topics" and base my decisions on that.

But according to you...I shouldn't even bother.

If you cannot find the time to fully familiarize yourself with the aforementioned information, you shouldn't.

So, since I am not good enough to vote, should I just accept whatever the "deciding class" decides is best for me?

At least under my plan the bourgeoisie "deciding class" would actually know what they're doing when they fill in the box, pull the lever, or make their selection on the touch screen. You readily accept the Orders you receive from the "deciding class" in the military, because you know that they HAVE taken the time to study the specifics of the particular situation at a level "above your pay grade" do you not? The same concept applies here, so once again, save your class warfare canards for the illiterate, ignorant, vacuous proletariat.

[PhilK]

Perhaps in the case of YOUR elected representatives, but the ones that I voted for are capable of passing the test, because I personally took the time to speak to them before deciding if I would vote for them.

Can you say the same for the other states?



Sir, with all due respect, that sounds like an excuse, and not a very good one at that. You can find out who your elected representative are with a simple web-search (if you don't have the time, send me a PM with the address of the nearest store to you and I'll be more than happy to look them up for you), and a mere few moments a day for a couple of weeks while you're spending time with your family, and you'll know it just as well as you do the procedure for field stripping your weapon.

No excuse, just stating that I have priorities in my life that I feel are greater then politics. I am well aware that I can look up all the information and I know what sites to go to when I want to find it.



If you cannot find the time to fully familiarize yourself with the aforementioned information, you shouldn't.

Duly noted.


At least under my plan the bourgeoisie "deciding class" would actually know what they're doing when they fill in the box, pull the lever, or make their selection on the touch screen.

So, they get to decide what is best for them and theirs?


You readily accept the Orders you receive from the "deciding class" in the military, because you know that they HAVE taken the time to study the specifics of the particular situation at a level "above your pay grade" do you not? The same concept applies here, so once again, save your class warfare canards for the illiterate, ignorant, vacuous proletariat.

Except I know those orders are in the best interest of achieving a specified objective or completing a specific operation. I also know that an entire staff puts together an order, not one person.

In your example, you are talking about the people in power. In this discussion, we are talking about the people who select those people in power.

Can you truly assure me that those who would vote under your system have to best interest of this country in mind?

I already have a system with people voting for their own self interests. What will change (except even fewer people making the decisions) under yours?

[03_SHOOTER]

Can you say the same for the other states?

I don't live in other States, so that would be left up to the citizens of those States.

No excuse, just stating that I have priorities in my life that I feel are greater then politics. I am well aware that I can look up all the information and I know what sites to go to when I want to find it.

We all have priorities Phil, but I don't want "part-time" doctors operating on me, and I don't want any "part-time" citizens deciding who operates the country.

So, they get to decide what is best for them and theirs?

No, they get to decide what is better for the country, because when you get people who really are serious enough about it to actually take the time to learn about it, they are presumably intelligent enough to put the interest of the nation above their own, because they realize that what is best for the nation IS what is best for them.

Except I know those orders are in the best interest of achieving a specified objective or completing a specific operation. I also know that an entire staff puts together an order, not one person.

And the entire State legislature would have to agree on what the final form of the requirements would take before it could be implimented, and they would do so with the full knowledge that they are doing so in the best interest of achieveing the specific objective of electing only the most competent individuals rather than some idiot not-so-funny "comedian" like they're facing in Minnesota!

In your example, you are talking about the people in power. In this discussion, we are talking about the people who select those people in power.

And who better to decide who will be in power than those who actually know something about the position of power the people they will be electing will occupy?

Can you truly assure me that those who would vote under your system have to best interest of this country in mind?

I can guarantee you that under my plan, they'd have a much better idea of what the best interests of the country really are, and that they would vote accordingly, because at this point, it's blatantly obvious that what we've currently got is most assuredly NOT in the best interest of the country, because they don't even have a passing familiarity with the foundational document under which our government operates!

I already have a system with people voting for their own self interests. What will change (except even fewer people making the decisions) under yours?

Because at that point, they're not voting for their own selfish interests, and they are at the very least familiar with the utter stupidity of attempting to do so.

[Javelin66]

Shooter, in an earlier post you mention 'your plan'. What exactly is your plan? You seem to be in favor of establishing additional qualifications for voting. Let us know what you propose.

[Drill for life]

Oi..I'm so sick of people rubbing it in that Obama won..it makes me sick just thinking about this..

I know I feel you. God puts our Leaders into power for a reason so all we can do is Grin and Bears it. We have been taought Discipline and Respect our our Higher-Ranking Officials so Lets respect President Electi Barack Obama. I did not support him but I will now because it's what I should do for my country. Atleast it'll be over in 4 years(I hope:dontgetit:).

[TruBlu]

I know I feel you. God puts our Leaders into power for a reason so all we can do is Grin and Bears it. We have been taought Discipline and Respect our our Higher-Ranking Officials so Lets respect President Electi Barack Obama. I did not support him but I will now because it's what I should do for my country. Atleast it'll be over in 4 years(I hope:dontgetit:).

We've also been taught proper English, grammar usage, and basic spell checking skills. This is a political forum where we all come to put forth our ideas and thoughts in clear, concise, and logical statements. for debate and discussion. For yourself and the rest of us cadets, do not make Grunt and the moderators regret opening this discussion area up to us cadets because of poorly written and thought out (or lack there of) statements.

[PhilK]

We all have priorities Phil, but I don't want "part-time" doctors operating on me, and I don't want any "part-time" citizens deciding who operates the country.

Then I wish you and the rest of the "full-time" citizens the best of luck.

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, in an earlier post you mention 'your plan'. What exactly is your plan? You seem to be in favor of establishing additional qualifications for voting. Let us know what you propose.

A rather simple "Civics" test not that dissimilar than the one that most people only scored (I believe) a 46% on, only under my "plan" anything below 85% and you do NOT vote. Basic Constitutional knowledge, who are YOUR elected representatives (at the national, State, and local levels), nothing too elaborate. I don't expect everyone to be able to debate the finer points of Marbury v Madison or US v Miller, but I do expect them to know at least the top 3 positions in the line of succession of the President, how many Articles there are in the Constitution, to be able to tell what each of those Articles covers (generally), to be able to demonstrate a knowledge of how many Amendments there are in the Bill of Rights, what Rights are protected in each of the first 10 Amendments, again, nothing that each and every one of us wasn't supposed to know before being old enough to vote.

Just like the Drivers License exam, everybody would be given a booklet to study before having to take the test, like a Drivers License exam, if you blow it you would be able to retest (up to 90 days prior to the next election), just like a Drivers License you would have to renew (retake the test) every 4 years, and you would be issued a photo ID "license" that you would have to present at the polls before being allowed to vote. To start off with, and so as to not be in conflict with the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution, the States could even use the naturalization test.

A. Principles of American Democracy

1. What is the supreme law of the land?

2. What does the Constitution do?

3. The idea of self-government is in the first three words of the Constitution. What are these words?

4. What is an amendment?

5. What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?

6. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment?*

7. How many amendments does the Constitution have?

8. What did the Declaration of Independence do?

9. What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?

10. What is freedom of religion?

11. What is the economic system in the United States?*

12. What is the "rule of law"?

B. System of Government

13. Name one branch or part of the government.*

14. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?

15. Who is in charge of the executive branch?

16. Who makes federal laws?

17. What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?*

18. How many U.S. Senators are there?

19. We elect a U.S. Senator for how many years?

20. Who is one of your state's U.S. Senators?

21. The House of Representatives has how many voting members?

22. We elect a U.S. Representative for how many years?

23. Name your U.S. Representative.

24. Who does a U.S. Senator represent?

25. Why do some states have more Representatives than other states?

26. We elect a President for how many years?

27. In what month do we vote for President?*

28. What is the name of the President of the United States now?

29. What is the name of the Vice President of the United States now?

30. If the President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

31. If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President?

32. Who is the Commander in Chief of the military?

33. Who signs bills to become laws?

34. Who vetoes bills?

35. What does the President's Cabinet do?

36. What are two Cabinet-level positions?

37. does the judicial branch do?

38. What is the highest court in the United States?

39. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?

40. Who is the Chief Justice of the United States?

41. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?

42. Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?

43. Who is the Governor of your state?

44. What is the capital of your state?

45. What are the two major political parties in the United States?

46. What is the political party of the President now?

47. What is the name of the Speaker of the House of Representatives now?

C: Rights and Responsibilities

48. There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.

49. What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens?

50. What are two rights only for United States citizens?

51. What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?

52. What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?

53. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?

54. How old do citizens have to be to vote for President?*

55. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy?

56. When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?*

57. When must all men register for the Selective Service?

AMERICAN HISTORY

A: Colonial Period and Independence

58. What is one reason colonists came to America?

59. Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?

60. What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?

61. Why did the colonists fight the British?

62. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?

63. When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

64. There were 13 original states. Name three.

65. What happened at the Constitutional Convention?

66. When was the Constitution written?

67. The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.

68. What is one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?

69. Who is the "Father of Our Country"?

70. Who was the first President?*

B: 1800s

71. What territory did the United States buy from France in 1803?

72. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1800s.

73. Name the U.S. war between the North and the South.

74. Name one problem that led to the Civil War.

75. What was one important thing that Abraham Lincoln did?

76. What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?

77. What did Susan B. Anthony do?

C: Recent American History and Other Important Historical Information

78. Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.

79. Who was President during World War I?

80. Who was President during the Great Depression and World War II?

81. Who did the United States fight in World War II?

82. Before he was President, Eisenhower was a general. What war was he in?

83. During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?

84. What movement tried to end racial discrimination?

85. What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?

86. What major event happened on September 11, 2001 in the United States?

87. Name one American Indian tribe in the United States.

INTEGRATED CIVICS

A: Geography

88. Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.

89. What ocean is on the West Coast of the United States?

90. What ocean is on the East Coast of the United States?

91. Name one U.S. territory.

92. Name one state that borders Canada.

93. Name one state that borders Mexico.

94. What is the capital of the United States?

95. Where is the Statue of Liberty?

B. Symbols

96. Why does the flag have 13 stripes?

97. Why does the flag have 50 stars?

98. What is the name of the national anthem?

C: Holidays

99. When do we celebrate Independence Day?

100. Name two national U.S. holidays.

[TruBlu]

That's one of the best ideas I've heard in a while lol.

A question for you, and of course my own opinion stated, but what are your thoughts on the legal age of voting? Should it stay at 18? Should it be lowered/raised?

Personally, I believe it should remain at 18 years. To me, you are then granted the "rights of adulthood," I use this very loosely, and as long as you know what you are doing it's all good. I agree entirely with your idea of a knowledge test for each voter, and I also believe it would close the debate about voting age (there wouldn't be a "stupid voter").

My stance on the age of 18 is pretty firm by the way. I believe that if you are legally an adult, all "rights of adulthood" should be granted to you, including the ever so hotly debated drinking age.

[HairyEyeball]

You are correct,Phil, I do not know your professor, and any 'assumptions' made were based on the information you supplied. That information indicated that his understanding of the system of government in this country is amenable to such change as you indicated he proposed.

And perhaps the reason neither major party represents neither the people they are alleged to represent nor the principles they were founded on is directly traceable to the facts that our institutes of 'learning' no longer teach those principles; that the 'me generation' has reversed Jack Kennedy's admonition to the point that 'what you can do for your country' has become the province of a dedicated few, while 'what your country can do for you' has become the operative ethic; that people would rather b*tch and moan about lousy candidates than make the effort to get involved at the local level - all politics are, after all, 'local' - and help find, and work to elect, 'good' ones at the precinct, district, city, county and State levels.

What a person may 'call' himself, or what party he arbitrarily aligns with, may or may not reflect his principles (if any) - too many individuals (a term used perhaps rather loosely for a conformist, indistinguishable subculture within our society) choose based on sound bites or the personality of a given candidate - again, much goes back to education (or the lack thereof). And what the parties themselves choose to call themselves - 'Antifederalist' or 'Republican', 'Federalist' or 'Democrat' - the principle, no matter how ignored, is the same: Bigger or smaller central government, and everything that both encompass.

[HairyEyeball]

03, your effort may be fine for a citizenship exam (provided it is only administered in English), it may even be excessive, but it fails in one important area as one for voting: Before an individual is entrusted with the responsibility of deciding who will lead the nation, or even the individual state, he should be required to demonstrate some basic knowledge of the candidates and their differences on salient issues, as well as of the issues themselves. In addition to verifying his 'qualification' to cast a ballot, it would self-justify the administration of such test at regular intervals.

As to Question 44, the capital of my state is the United States Dollar (although Mexican Pesos are accepted by many businesses), its capitol is Phoenix. You have also marked some of the questions with an asterisk, but given no indication of what such indicates.

[03_SHOOTER]

That's one of the best ideas I've heard in a while lol.

A question for you, and of course my own opinion stated, but what are your thoughts on the legal age of voting? Should it stay at 18? Should it be lowered/raised?

Personally, I believe it should remain at 18 years. To me, you are then granted the "rights of adulthood," I use this very loosely, and as long as you know what you are doing it's all good. I agree entirely with your idea of a knowledge test for each voter, and I also believe it would close the debate about voting age (there wouldn't be a "stupid voter").

My stance on the age of 18 is pretty firm by the way. I believe that if you are legally an adult, all "rights of adulthood" should be granted to you, including the ever so hotly debated drinking age.

My own opinion is that the 26th Amendment was yet another "States Right" that was thrown away by the States. As it is the States that allow you the privilege of voting, it should be up to your State to determine at what age you will be allowed to do so. If the State of Alabama were to decide tomorrow that they would allow 14 year olds to vote, provided they had demonstrated the proper amount of intellect and comprehension of the subject material (for instance by being able to pass my simple test), I'd say go for it! The same goes for the age to drink, the age to marry, of for that matter the age to do any of the very precious few things that the States still retain control of irrespective of what Big Brother wants.

One thing to remember though, is that once all "rights of adulthood" have been granted to you, you also acquire all of the responsibilities as well, so don't be in such a rush, you'll get there soon enough.

[03_SHOOTER]

03, your effort may be fine for a citizenship exam (provided it is only administered in English), it may even be excessive, but it fails in one important area as one for voting: Before an individual is entrusted with the responsibility of deciding who will lead the nation, or even the individual state, he should be required to demonstrate some basic knowledge of the candidates and their differences on salient issues, as well as of the issues themselves. In addition to verifying his 'qualification' to cast a ballot, it would self-justify the administration of such test at regular intervals.

As to Question 44, the capital of my state is the United States Dollar (although Mexican Pesos are accepted by many businesses), its capitol is Phoenix. You have also marked some of the questions with an asterisk, but given no indication of what such indicates.

I too would love to see specific questions in regards to the particular candidates, but as we've seen in too many elections lately, what they say this week bears little semblance to what they'll be saying next week, or next year, thereby rendering any opportunity to print out a test that would be remotely accurate implausible. Also, at this point, I'd be happy if the vast majority of the sheeple could pass the citizenship exam, and anything over and above I consider lagniappe.

I copied the test from About.com and pasted it here (sans answers). As to the asterisks, they are an indication that anyone over a certain age or who had been in the country for over a certain amount of time that you would have the option of answering only those questions with asterisks (I had intended to remove all of them, but obviously missed a few).

As to the capitAl/capitOl question, it is my understanding (and subsequently confirmed by Merriam Websters) that capitAl refers to the city which is the seat of government resides and capitOl is the physical building.

[TruBlu]

My own opinion is that the 26th Amendment was yet another "States Right" that was thrown away by the States. As it is the States that allow you the privilege of voting, it should be up to your State to determine at what age you will be allowed to do so. If the State of Alabama were to decide tomorrow that they would allow 14 year olds to vote, provided they had demonstrated the proper amount of intellect and comprehension of the subject material (for instance by being able to pass my simple test), I'd say go for it! The same goes for the age to drink, the age to marry, of for that matter the age to do any of the very precious few things that the States still retain control of irrespective of what Big Brother wants.

One thing to remember though, is that once all "rights of adulthood" have been granted to you, you also acquire all of the responsibilities as well, so don't be in such a rush, you'll get there soon enough.

One thing that my brief research into our government is that I have noticed is that while we call ourselves a "United States of America," we don't really operate as such. Really we just operate as conglomerate of separated regions and sub regions with names. State power was the essence of our country in its creation if I am not mistaken. Now, state power is minimal (or at least it seems to be) because of such a large federal government and increasing power of the President.

It seems to me that all debates are at the federal level, not state. Guns, gays, economics, abortion, health care, etc., are all topics of what a Presidential candidate should do. Is that fair? I thought state governments governed their state, and the federal government provided the unification.

Am I out of line?

[03_SHOOTER]

One thing that my brief research into our government is that I have noticed is that while we call ourselves a "United States of America," we don't really operate as such. Really we just operate as conglomerate of separated regions and sub regions with names. State power was the essence of our country in its creation if I am not mistaken. Now, state power is minimal (or at least it seems to be) because of such a large federal government and increasing power of the President.

It seems to me that all debates are at the federal level, not state. Guns, gays, economics, abortion, health care, etc., are all topics of what a Presidential candidate should do. Is that fair? I thought state governments governed their state, and the federal government provided the unification.

Am I out of line?

Actually you're DEAD on as to how it was SUPPOSED to be.

The problem is though that over the years States have slowly surrendered their Rights to the Federal government until today, for all intents and purposes, the States really have no Rights per se. Again, take the case of Wickard v Filburn in which an Ohio farmer was charged with a Federal crime for growing wheat in excess of his Federally mandated allotment, for his own consumption, on his own farm, under the auspices that the wheat that he grew for his own consumption and to feed his livestock, would necessarily remove from the overall market the amount of wheat based products that would be bought (by HIM), and therefore interfered with "Interstate Commerce"! Personally, I find this to be one of the most egregious examples of both Congressional overreaching, as well as Judicial misconduct in the history of our nation, and it set the standard by which the Federal government now intrudes into each and every one of our daily lives.

[TruBlu]

Actually you're DEAD on as to how it was SUPPOSED to be.

The problem is though that over the years States have slowly surrendered their Rights to the Federal government until today, for all intents and purposes, the States really have no Rights per se. Again, take the case of Wickard v Filburn in which an Ohio farmer was charged with a Federal crime for growing wheat in excess of his Federally mandated allotment, for his own consumption, on his own farm, under the auspices that the wheat that he grew for his own consumption and to feed his livestock, would necessarily remove from the overall market the amount of wheat based products that would be bought (by HIM), and therefore interfered with "Interstate Commerce"! Personally, I find this to be one of the most egregious examples of both Congressional overreaching, as well as Judicial misconduct in the history of our nation, and it set the standard by which the Federal government now intrudes into each and every one of our daily lives.

The way that I see it, it's a chain of "power stealing." One example that I could think of when it comes to the robbery of "power" within the federal government itself is the War Powers Act of 1973, where Congress basically surrendered its right to "make war" to the President. Now when I say "power stealing," I do not mean a cycle of "powers" being alternated through the system. No, I mean that it starts at the top and feeds upon the bottom. The President "steals power" from the Legislative Branch, who then "steals power" from the individual states. The states simply loose their "powers" to make decisions on their own and the Executive branch, which was never a powerful position in it's creation, becomes the most powerful section of our government.

I don't want to draw correlation to a "dictatorship effect," that's another topic for another discussion entirely, and I won't go that far. But quintessentially, the President becomes more than a figurehead and representative to more of a power driven, decision making individual.

[HairyEyeball]

We may be using dictionaries published under different philosophies. Mine (Webster, ©1954) predates the inclusion of street ****** slang as valid parts of language, and takes a narrower view of spelling and usage.

I find your explanation of the asterisks interesting. By what standard (if given) does the originator deem the length of a person's residence valid reason for discrepancies in required knowledge?

And Blu, 'fair' is where you go to play rigged games and eat cotton candy. One of the consequences of the supposed homogenization of the 'United States' under the seizure of powers by the central government is that while the individual States did, in fact, lose their distinguishing identities, the realities of geography were never affected by political boundaries. East Texas, for all practical intents and purposes, is still 'the South', while - with the exception of variance in dialect - only the concrete corridor that runs from Washington to Boston is 'the East'. Much of the country is further fragmented by the fact that while the inhabitants of the major area in a given State may be of one political persuasion, the population centers are of another: The effective 'politics' of all of New York is decided in New York City, of California in Los Angeles County, of Illinois in Chicago and its suburbs. Further fragmentation is a direct result of professional politicians pandering to specific 'interest groups' without a necessary 'geographical center' - almost any political map will show different loci, depending on the criteria predicated.

While it may not provide a satisfactory answer, you may gain some insight into the complexities by comparing the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Confederate States: Three approaches, no 'satisfactory' solution.

[HairyEyeball]

If the State of Alabama were to decide tomorrow that they would allow 14 year olds to vote, provided they had demonstrated the proper amount of intellect and comprehension of the subject material (for instance by being able to pass my simple test), I'd say go for it! The same goes for the age to drink, the age to marry, of for that matter the age to do any of the very precious few things that the States still retain control of irrespective of what Big Brother wants.

Say hello to the Law of Unintended Consequences: To the extent that such voting influences only such offices whose purview does not exceed the borders of the given State, this would be a reasonable and proper power of the State - although in practice, it is as conceivable that a given State lower the age to 16 as they raise it to 25 - or 50. We've seen the Medicare debacle orchestrated by the AARP, what would prevent them from applying the same pressure to the legislatures of those 'retirement' States, where their influence is proportionately greater?

Further, whatever legal voting age may be determined by an individual State, the federal government still reserves the power to set the arbitrary voting age for federal elections - to include Senators and Representatives from that State. Under a system of widely varying State voting ages, how do you propose to separate those voters under the legal national voting age from those of State voting age? Separate Election Days? Separate ballots? Separate polling places (again, with two different ballots, one for those qualified to vote for all, one for those age-limited to vote for only some)?

[Skylark]

Non responsive to the original premise.
The premise was flawed. 'All Democrats are lying, no-good, very bad people, and they are out to destroy the Constitution. You don't want them destroying the Constitution, do you?'

Nobody wants anybody in any party destroying the Constitution, or using the Oval Office to violate the laws of the land, or any of that. So I'd be a fool (or a scoundrel) if I said I did. I tend to vote Democrat because I tend to support their platform more than the Republican party's (and there aren't many viable alternatives, but that's another issue). That option doesn't seem to exist in the dilemma you gave.

The premise was whether or not they were going to institute the "change" that "they" want, or the change that We The People want,
The Democratic Party is the largest political party in the United States. Barack Obama was elected by a modern landslide and 365 (http://www.270towin.com/) electoral votes. The Democratic Party gained 22 seats in the House (as of 22Nov counting), and in the Senate they gained enough seats to have almost a filibuster-proof majority.

Dunno. Seems to me that this round the people have spoken.

As I stated above, the fact that they ran on promises to violate their Oaths of Office, before they even take that Oath, should be all the proof that anyone even remotely familiar with the Constitution needs to realize that they are going to do exactly what THEY want to do, regardless of what we want, or the Constitution demands.

Cite? Who ran on promises to violate their oaths of office?

[TruBlu]

And Blu, 'fair' is where you go to play rigged games and eat cotton candy. One of the consequences of the supposed homogenization of the 'United States' under the seizure of powers by the central government is that while the individual States did, in fact, lose their distinguishing identities, the realities of geography were never affected by political boundaries. East Texas, for all practical intents and purposes, is still 'the South', while - with the exception of variance in dialect - only the concrete corridor that runs from Washington to Boston is 'the East'. Much of the country is further fragmented by the fact that while the inhabitants of the major area in a given State may be of one political persuasion, the population centers are of another: The effective 'politics' of all of New York is decided in New York City, of California in Los Angeles County, of Illinois in Chicago and its suburbs. Further fragmentation is a direct result of professional politicians pandering to specific 'interest groups' without a necessary 'geographical center' - almost any political map will show different loci, depending on the criteria predicated.

While it may not provide a satisfactory answer, you may gain some insight into the complexities by comparing the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Confederate States: Three approaches, no 'satisfactory' solution.

I suppose the real question to it all is this: Is there a "satisfactory" solution? If so, could we, as man, achieve it?

I would have to so no. In any constitution, there is the influence of the individuals who build it. Because human nature dictates that agreement amongst each other is nearly impossible, and only made possible through deal after deal dissecting each others' propositions until neither involved party even proposes what they initially supported. Then, no one agrees with the final outcome after the fact and "interpretation" begins.

Then the cycle begins again. Thoughts?

[HairyEyeball]

They've obviously ceased teaching history, Blu - the 'power stealing' you refer to far predates the War Powers Act (which is an absurdity on its face: Should we be attacked while Congress is in recess, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is obligated to respond without a formal Congressional 'declaration of war', and should the conflict continue beyond the 90-day 'limit', it strains credulity to imagine the enemy responding favorably to a 'time's up whistle' ending the war). The jockeying for power is as old as the Constitution that separated the powers among the branches. Even Marbury v Madison, the judiciary's most blatant power grab, was far from the first instance.

[HairyEyeball]

The Constitution itself was a compromise, its flaws were necessary for ratification - but those who drafted, and argued, and redrafted were, by and large, 'men of good faith' whose purpose was to improve on the Articles of Confederation. To a great extent, they did - but Lord Acton's Axiom has never been refuted for a reason, and greed has always been a motivating factor in human nature.

You may have noticed the quotation marks around my use of 'satisfactory': Obviously, no matter how 'fair' or 'equitable', no one solution will satisfy all parties to any compromise.

You are also incorrect in your assertion that "Nobody wants anybody in any party destroying the Constitution, or using the Oval Office to violate the laws of the land, or any of that." Had it been so, candidates with long histories of violating the Constitution, of campaigning on platforms advocating those portions of it they deemed 'inconvenient' or 'outdated' be ignored or repealed, de facto or de jure, would not have been elected (or reelected).

Barrack Hussein was 'elected' by the media, and by millions of illegal advertising dollars - the fact that there will be no formal 'investigation' is as irrelevant as the fact that there was minimal to no coverage of either in that media. And when he carries through on his promise to evade the law and rule by 'executive order', many of which he has revealed, and the overwhelming majority of which are in direct opposition to the Constitution, what then?

[Skylark]

If ever there was better evidence of the need for the various States to institute some form of mandatory testing before allowing their citizens the privilege of voting, I've not seen one.

They tried that once before. Jim Crow Laws. Poll taxing. It got a bad rep.

What does citizenship have to do with voting? Are you under the impression that there is some "right" to vote in America?Yes I am. It's called the "right to vote."

The 15th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adult males.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 19th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adult females. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes. "No one should be too poor to vote."Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The 26th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adults.Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


I would say that, under the Constitution, there is a right to vote in the United States.

[TruBlu]

They've obviously ceased teaching history, Blu - the 'power stealing' you refer to far predates the War Powers Act...The jockeying for power is as old as the Constitution that separated the powers among the branches. Even Marbury v Madison, the judiciary's most blatant power grab, was far from the first instance.

For me, I know most about the War Powers Act of 1973 more than anything else, and I figured I was "most qualified" at best to refer to that than another far more vague subject to me.

The Constitution itself was a compromise, its flaws were necessary for ratification - but those who drafted, and argued, and redrafted were, by and large, 'men of good faith' whose purpose was to improve on the Articles of Confederation. To a great extent, they did - but Lord Acton's Axiom has never been refuted for a reason, and greed has always been a motivating factor in human nature.

You may have noticed the quotation marks around my use of 'satisfactory': Obviously, no matter how 'fair' or 'equitable', no one solution will satisfy all parties to any compromise.

It wasn't meant to be an attack on the Constitution, simply an observation to draw some thought from others, of course grabbing only your attention :lookaround:.

Maybe I worded my message in a way that didn't evoke what I was really going after, which was an agreement with you on a "satisfactory" constitution. Then again, now that I think of it, satisfactory, great, and perfect are three completely different terms describing three specific events. Maybe a "satisfactory" constitution, or agreement is possible; maybe that's what we have, maybe not. It's more like a "perfect" constitution or even a "great" constitution is out of reach. Satisfaction is the agreement after all right?

[TruBlu]

They tried that once before. Jim Crow Laws. Poll taxing. It got a bad rep.

How is poll taxation a mandatory test? A test of one man's wallet? That's a stretch. There was also the literacy requirements and testing (which many whites exempted because of unfair laws). But in this day and age, unfair laws regarding race have been disbanded, so mandatory testing would be just that.

Is there a problem with wanting to ensure that each voter is at least literate and knowledgeable in the subject area?

[03_SHOOTER]

We may be using dictionaries published under different philosophies. Mine (Webster, ©1954) predates the inclusion of street ****** slang as valid parts of language, and takes a narrower view of spelling and usage.

??????

I find your explanation of the asterisks interesting. By what standard (if given) does the originator deem the length of a person's residence valid reason for discrepancies in required knowledge?

As I said, I merely copied the questions as posted from About.com, so the rationale for allowing those over 65 and who have been in the country for 20 or more years to answer only those specified questions escapes me.

[03_SHOOTER]

Say hello to the Law of Unintended Consequences: To the extent that such voting influences only such offices whose purview does not exceed the borders of the given State, this would be a reasonable and proper power of the State - although in practice, it is as conceivable that a given State lower the age to 16 as they raise it to 25 - or 50. We've seen the Medicare debacle orchestrated by the AARP, what would prevent them from applying the same pressure to the legislatures of those 'retirement' States, where their influence is proportionately greater?

There is nothing to prevent any State from establishing it's own voting age, provided that such age restrictions are in compliance with the Constitution.

Further, whatever legal voting age may be determined by an individual State, the federal government still reserves the power to set the arbitrary voting age for federal elections - to include Senators and Representatives from that State. Under a system of widely varying State voting ages, how do you propose to separate those voters under the legal national voting age from those of State voting age? Separate Election Days? Separate ballots? Separate polling places (again, with two different ballots, one for those qualified to vote for all, one for those age-limited to vote for only some)?

Separate ballots would be the easiest. In our most recent election, there were already two ballots necessary, and they were essentially divided between Federal and State elections. Again, this would necessitate the presentation of a valid photo ID at the polling place, which hopefully would only be issued after completion of the aforementioned Voter Eligibility Test.

[03_SHOOTER]

The premise was flawed. 'All Democrats are lying, no-good, very bad people, and they are out to destroy the Constitution. You don't want them destroying the Constitution, do you?'

Your apparant lack of historical perspective of the (Marxist) Democrat Party does not render the premise flawed, it only illustrates your own ignorance of the facts.

Nobody wants anybody in any party destroying the Constitution, or using the Oval Office to violate the laws of the land, or any of that. So I'd be a fool (or a scoundrel) if I said I did. I tend to vote Democrat because I tend to support their platform more than the Republican party's (and there aren't many viable alternatives, but that's another issue). That option doesn't seem to exist in the dilemma you gave.

Then I recommend that you check out a copy of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and read it, and then compare it to the Party platform of the Democrat party, they are almost IDENTICAL in concept. The mere fact that you readily acknowledge that you support their platform indicates that you have no comprehension of the Constitution, because it is your parties platform to usurp, abrogate, and violate it at every turn.

The Democratic Party is the largest political party in the United States. Barack Obama was elected by a modern landslide and 365 (http://www.270towin.com/) electoral votes. The Democratic Party gained 22 seats in the House (as of 22Nov counting), and in the Senate they gained enough seats to have almost a filibuster-proof majority.

Largest political party? Further evidence that the sheeple are engaging in the very situation that Sir Alex Fraser Tytler warned againts; "A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" The sheeple elected a totally unqualified Marxist on his promises to violate the Constitution up one side and down the other, and to then wipe his posterior with it, and you act as if that's a "good" thing.

Landslide? That would be funny if it weren't so sad. How do you propse to defend the premise that 52.8% of the popular vote is a "landslide" for "the Messiah", but when President Bush won with 50.7% of the popular vote he "stole" the election? The last "landslide" election this nation had was in 1984 when Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale with 58.8% of the popular vote.

Dunno. Seems to me that this round the people have spoken.

The people are entirely too stupid to realize how stupid they really are.

Cite? Who ran on promises to violate their oaths of office?

YOUR "Messiah". Socialized medicine is one, "redistribution of wealth" (i.e. COMMUNISM) is another, his stances on Affirmative Discrimination, his complete disregard for the Second Amendmentand that's just for starters. Oh, and did I mention the fact that he LIES, is a MARXIST, RACIST, and hangs out with an UNREPENTANT TERRORIST?

[03_SHOOTER]

They tried that once before. Jim Crow Laws. Poll taxing. It got a bad rep.

Awww, poor babies couldn't even READ but they should be allowed to decide who was going to run the government?

Yes I am. It's called the "right to vote."

Then I suggest that you re-read the 14th Amendment, there is no "right" to vote in any Federal election, period, end of discussion. While you're at it, you might also want to review the recent case of GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) as heard before the Supreme Court in 2000. In that case, the Court very clearly stated "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1." They then go on to explain, in very clear terms, that the States are under no obligation to even allow it's citizens to participate in the election of POTUS, and that if the State so chooses, that it is perfectly within their purview to appoint the Electors themselves.

The 15th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adult males.

The 19th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adult females.

The 24th Amendment outlawed poll taxes. "No one should be too poor to vote."

The 26th Amendment ensures the right to vote to all adults.

I would say that, under the Constitution, there is a right to vote in the United States.

Then you comprehension of the written word is as lacking as your comprehension of the Constitution. They all specifically state that the aforementioned persons may not be DENIED the vote based on those criteria, it does NOT grant them a "right" to vote. The use of the verbiage "right to vote" in those Amendments assumes that the State has granted you that "right", but it also makes clear that the "right" CAN be denied or abridged for reasons not excluded by the aforementioned Amendments, as well as the resultant penalties the States will endure should they elect to deny anyone the vote being clearly enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

[HairyEyeball]

In our most recent election, there were already two ballots necessary...

'Necessary'? I'm curious for the rationale behind that. Here, every elected office, from POTUS to (figuratively) dog catcher was on one side of one ballot, all 'Propositions' on the other - both in English and, of course 'by law' but not logic, Spanish. Were multiple facilites required to separate them at the polling place? An explanation would be appreciated.

[03_SHOOTER]

'Necessary'? I'm curious for the rationale behind that. Here, every elected office, from POTUS to (figuratively) dog catcher was on one side of one ballot, all 'Propositions' on the other - both in English and, of course 'by law' but not logic, Spanish. Were multiple facilites required to separate them at the polling place? An explanation would be appreciated.

Here, they were printed only on one side of the ballot, and in very large font (I can only surmise as to appropriately satisfy the elderly and/or sight impaired), but with the placement of the 'fill in boxes' offset (national election fill-in boxes on the left, State and local fill-in boxes on the right) so that when you were finished, you simply fed them into the same machine. They were also different colors, again I can only surmise to facilitate the recount procedure should it be necessary (no sense handling local ballots if a national recount were necessary, and vise versa).

[Javelin66]

Shooter, I reviewed the ruling that you posted, and you seem to be leaving out some tidbits that would tend not to support your argument.

However, I find what you are saying to be intriguing, and you seem to be right. I have to confess that I am not an expert in the methods that each of the fifty states has chosen to select their electors.

Do you happen to know if any of the state legislatures ignore the results of the popular election and select electors through another method?

[03_SHOOTER]

Shooter, I reviewed the ruling that you posted, and you seem to be leaving out some tidbits that would tend not to support your argument.

I haven't left anything out, which is why I posted a link to the ruling. If you find something that you feel is contradictory, by all means post it and we'll discuss it. Remember, under the rules of Debate, it is not my responsibility to present evidence contrary to my own, that responsibility falls to the "loyal opposition". :)

However, I find what you are saying to be intriguing, and you seem to be right. I have to confess that I am not an expert in the methods that each of the fifty states has chosen to select their electors.

Do you happen to know if any of the state legislatures ignore the results of the popular election and select electors through another method?

No, as the ruling makes clear, once the State has allowed the people to vote, the results of that vote determine the selection of the Electors, and the State Legislature may not nullify the vote of the people. What the Electors choose to do with the results of the popular election however, in some States, is entirely up to them, and they are not bound to vote according to the popular vote, while in others they are bound by State statute to cast their votes in accordance with the popular vote. On the other hand, Maine and Nebraska have even taken to splitting their Electors according to the popular vote, which gives some of their Electoral votes to one candidate and the rest to the other. It is also important to note that each State has their own procedure for selecting their Electors.

[Skylark]

Your apparant lack of historical perspective of the (Marxist) Democrat Party does not render the premise flawed, it only illustrates your own ignorance of the facts.

That was uncalled for.

Nobody wants anybody in any party destroying the Constitution, or using the Oval Office to violate the laws of the land, or any of that. So I'd be a fool (or a scoundrel) if I said I did. I tend to vote Democrat because I tend to support their platform more than the Republican party's (and there aren't many viable alternatives, but that's another issue). That option doesn't seem to exist in the dilemma you gave.Then I recommend that you check out a copy of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and read it, I have. they are almost IDENTICAL in concept. Which parts?

The mere fact that you readily acknowledge that you support their platform indicates that you have no comprehension of the Constitution, because it is your parties platform to usurp, abrogate, and violate it at every turn.Cite?

Largest political party? Further evidence that the sheeple are engaging in the very situation that Sir Alex Fraser Tytler warned againts; "A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" The sheeple elected a totally unqualified Marxist on his promises to violate the Constitution up one side and down the other, and to then wipe his posterior with it, and you act as if that's a "good" thing.It is the largest political party in the country (the old quip is "there's more Democrats but more Republicans vote"). I didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing, just stating that there was an election and Obama's party won, resoundingly.

How do you propse to defend the premise that 52.8% of the popular vote is a "landslide" for "the Messiah", but when President Bush won with 50.7% of the popular vote he "stole" the election?I never said Bush stole any election, or that Obama was the messiah. You're putting words in my mouth.

By the most modern judging, Obama won in a small landslide, or at least greater than anything since 1984. If you don't count it as a landslide, he won every state Kerry did in 2004 plus several Bush states. That should say something.

The people are entirely too stupid to realize how stupid they really are.Yeah, it's a democracy. Don't it suck?

YOUR "Messiah". Socialized medicine is one, "redistribution of wealth" (i.e. COMMUNISM) is another, his stances on Affirmative Discrimination, his complete disregard for the Second Amendmentand that's just for starters. Those are arguably bad policy moves, but there's nothing in the Oath of Office which they violate.

They tried that once before. Jim Crow Laws. Poll taxing. It got a bad rep.Awww, poor babies couldn't even READ but they should be allowed to decide who was going to run the government? Historically those kinds of laws were used specifically to disenfranchise black people and immigrants, which is why they're not allowed to be used anymore.

Then I suggest that you re-read the 14th Amendment, there is no "right" to vote in any Federal election, period, end of discussion. While you're at it, you might also want to review the recent case of GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al. as heard before the Supreme Court in 2000. In that case, the Court very clearly stated "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1." They then go on to explain, in very clear terms, that the States are under no obligation to even allow it's citizens to participate in the election of POTUS, and that if the State so chooses, that it is perfectly within their purview to appoint the Electors themselves.

I'm well aware of the Electoral College and how it works. Yes, there is no national election, but state elections to choose who of that state's electors will vote for the President on December 15th. But while every state has its own methods of doing all this (as you mention), every state bases this on the idea that the people of that state have made their preference known. Regardless whether or not my vote counts in a federal election, it is an inherited custom that in this country we vote on things (and every state a republican government), whether by direct vote or voting someone else to vote on it, and as an American citizen I (or Jose down the street) have as much right to vote as anyone else.

They all specifically state that the aforementioned persons may not be DENIED the vote based on those criteria, it does NOT grant them a "right" to vote. The Constitution and Bill of Rights hardly grants me anything, but bans the government from taking it away from me.